bdrake529

Are you saying you don't believe Chuck Blue? Blasphemy! Brian Drake

Glen, Your experiment challenge is valid and I'd like to try it. Logistically this will be a bit tricky since I don't own all that equipment, so I'd have to arrange to borrow some of it. I take it you have done the same experiment. Would you please post your data and findings? I don't understand how "standing still" would be the only explanation for the accuracy of my landing to the displayed data. The data points leading up to "touch down" all correspond with a reasonable expectation and visual recollection. Brian Drake

...and by the way, I found that when I completely un-stitched the arms on my Super Mach 1, I had a much higher fall rate. Great success!!! I'll post pictures and logger data soon. Oh, wait.... (edit) for the record, this is a joke. I have not tried the mod Tony has posted about so I have no idea of the impact on my fallrate. Brian Drake

Pierre, I often hear people discount freefall loggers and GPS as substantially inaccurate and practically worthless in reporting authoritative, or even passably reliable data. Yet I've never heard anyone provide any data or logic to back up that assertion. Would you mind explaining why you've come to your conclusions? I'm honestly curious. I use both GPS (frequently) and an L&B VISO (every jump) and I've not encountered any glaring reason to distrust the data provided. My freefall times can be verified on jumps with video and my GPS position as displayed in Google Earth always matches my visual references on the jump (e.g., when I land in the center of the 10m diameter pea pit at Elsinore, Google Earth shows my landing in the center of the grey circle in the satellite/high-alt photograph). I realize there are potential flaws of logic in how one analyzes the data (e.g., not accounting for wind, or merely looking at fallrate "peaks"/"flares"), but I'm not aware of compelling evidence that I should significantly distrust the actual data. For my sake, and anyone else here with the same curiosity, would you please elaborate on your case against the data acquisition technology available to the general skydiving public? Thank you, Brian Brian Drake

I'm actually a bit concerned about pull-time, so I've been devising a simple cutaway system so I can detach from the banner before pulling. I plan to do this jump at a desert DZ so I'm not worried about the banner hitting anything, nor would I anticipate it'd have much of a fallrate on its own anyway. Would extending the tow lines (between my feet and the banner) let the banner avoid my burble and therefore lay more horizontally? Or would the longer tow lines introduce more instability resulting in a spinning piece of fabric? The "Blade" banner in the pics looks like a tube. Was it? Will I need to construct it to be inflatable (to some extent) or would a simple, two dimensional strip of fabric work? Brian Drake

I'd like to make a video of myself flying my wingsuit, trailing an advertising banner behind me, like those planes do above the beach/sports arenas. It is not my goal for the banner to be legible from the ground, only that it's recognizable from the vantage point of another wingsuiter flying a camera. I imagine this is logistically (including safety concerns) similar to freeflying with a (streaming) tube (which I've not done). Except it is my hope that the banner/tube will lay out horizontally (as much as possible) behind me and still be readable. Is this possible? One concern I have is that the banner will spin and twirl behind me, making its message impossible to see. Would a tube be a better shape to maintain correct orientation? Or is there a way to strategically place drag, or devise a multi-point attachment system to keep the banner taught and stable? Size? I would guess something around 10 feet long and a few feet tall. Again, I only want video of this so it doesn't have to be any bigger than what will increase the odds of success. Thanks in advance for any advice provided. Brian Brian Drake

I also want to see pics of the suit (on the ground, closeups of the mod, as well as in the air, but mainly just closeups of the mod) and Altitrack data. Jarno, I've been mulling this subject over in my head and somethings don't add up (due solely to my lack of understanding, I'd safely guess). I have no real knowledge to contradict what you're saying, so please consider this question a legitimate request for instruction, rather than a hostile challenge (i.e., a "pissing contest"). You've asserted that in determining "sustained" flight, it must be certain that any residual energy from a dive has been dissipated and the suit/pilot is truly executing a flight mode that can indefinitely maintain the claimed fallrate (basically limited only by physical endurance). That makes sense and appears to be a convincing standard. However, I'm confused as to how you arrive at your criteria for the "cut off" point of when the suit is no longer "flaring" and is actually flying at a given speed. Someone first suggested 15 seconds, then another person 30 seconds. You rejected both of these and have stuck with 1 minute being the minimum time to prove a sustained fall rate. Could you (or anyone else....Robi?) please explain the physics (in layman's terms) of how this is determined? How is a dive converted into lift and how long can that energy be maintained? Ultimately, without jet boots or some other form of propulsion, we are "powered by gravity" and nothing else, correct? So as our fall rate decreases, doesn't the total energy of the system decrease as well? I also understand that we gain some lift from a horizontal speed element. But isn't this also directly tied to the energy gained from falling? And is not this forward speed quickly bled off when "flaring" the suit because of the increased drag presented in a "slow fall rate" flight mode? Isn't this roughly the same game as canopy flight? And aren't we wingsuiters significantly less efficient at flying than high-performance canopies (or even low-performance ones)? I was watching some footage of the CPC and even in the distance event, I'm not seeing people sustain a 30 second swoop. How is a wingsuiter able to maintain dive energy and convert it into lift for a longer period of time? I realize that on the whole, we can hit higher fallrates than swoopers under canopy, but don't we also have much less efficiency in sustaining that energy in a flare? Thanks, Brian Brian Drake

For the record, the Optima and Solo are not loggers and do not record jump data. I'm not trying to split hairs, just don't want people thinking these audibles double as jump computers (though that'd be nice since I have both). Brian Drake

That's not really a reliable indicator as some loggers (like the VISO), have a "SLO" setting that isn't fooled by wingsuit flights. So Jarno, 15 seconds isn't "sustained"; 30 seconds isn't "sustained"; "sustained" means the entire flight avg; but "sustained" also means 1 minute. Sounds fairly arbitrary to me. Brian Drake

Thanks Matt, I'm a bit rust on my math... 120 / 20 = ??? Where's a calculator when you need one!? Sarcastic retort aside, as I mentioned in the parenthesis, I wasn't anticipating a flight that was 20mph straight out the door all the way to pull time. So I opted for a more "realistic" guess of 4.5-5.5 min. Brian Drake

Jeff, once this mod is done, how far below your torso are you pushing your hands to get those fallrates? What is your angle of attack? Head high to horizon or flat? Are you completely tensioning the wings (leg wings too), or are you allowing them to "cup" air and "balloon" up a bit? Does this mod effect backflying at all? I imagine it increases the load on the front side stitching. Is there a possibility of a wing blowing out due to this? Brian Drake

Can we see some pictures of this? Is this something that current "series 2" suits can be retrofitted with? Sounds like a rigger could do the work, or am I wrong? With a sustained fallrate in the 20s, was Jeff getting 4.5-5.5 minute flights (assuming fallrate was higher on exit and at pull time)? Brian Drake

I'll be there Dec 22-26 Brian Drake

On my second flight with the Blade, the arm wing fabric was deflated enough that it was loose and covered my handle, causing me to have to move my arms out to the side again before moving back for a second try. Obviously, since you've never experienced this, it's not a guarranteed problem and perhaps I did something wrong. Never had that problem on my SM1 though (but had it twice on a Ghost). Your comment about the grippers (over using them to tension the wing) is most likely the reason I experienced the loss in fall rate. I was anticipating this due to previous comments you've made on this forum, yet I experienced the exact opposite. The leg wing always collapsed span-wise without any resistance. I was also expecting the Blade to feel "like inflatable beds stuck between my arms and legs" but never got that feeling. This isn't a criticism of the suit, just an observation. Perhaps my body position wasn't correct (though if this is the case, the suit deserves extra credit for performing so well while flown incorrectly) and the suit's inflation was somehow hampered. Have you flown a Super Mach 1 (or any of Tony's suits with the new airlocks/inlets)? After flying a SM1, I expected all suits with airlocks to feel similar (almost-impossible-to-collapse wings), yet neither the Ghost or the Blade felt anything like it (inflation wise) and I found it easy to collapse the wings on both suits. Again, I'd recommend a Blade to anyone. It's a great suit. Just reporting my observations from my limited experience with each suit. Brian Drake

I've got very limited wingsuiting experience compared to most on this board, so consider my opinion accordingly (i.e., with a grain of salt). Blade, Ghost, Super Mach 1 - They all have incredible range; can be backflown very well; can be flown dirty while maintaining maneuverability; have an impressive performance top end. The following is only a list of pros and cons that separate the suits in my opinion. Super Mach 1 Pros: - Most performance (speed and lift) of any suit I've flown so far. - Airlocked inlets keep wings absolutely rigid, no flappage at all. -- Gigantic wings stay inflated during pull making it easy to find handle. -- Inflated wings keep performance even when grippers are released. - Easiest to wear (zipper from toe to throat makes getting in the suit very simple). - Takes less than 1 minute to attach to rig. - Appears to be the most durably made. - Amazingly quick order turn around. - Customer service is top notch and company is in Florida, not Europe (i.e., quick shipping). - Constant comments from other jumpers on how freaking huge the wings are. Cons - None. Didn't you get the memo that this is the Tony Suit advertising forum?.... jk - Most physically demanding suit I've flown. - Easy to fly stable, but steeper learning curve to fly well (again, this is all just my experience). - Can be a bit wobbly when maxing out (Jeff himself compared it to flying on the edge of a knife). - Airlocks are a double-edge sword as they make collapsing the leg wing while in flight almost impossible. This makes maneuvers like barrel rolls very difficult (I still can't consistently perform them on heading, though I can with every other suit) - Questionable cutaway system. - Constant comments from other jumpers on how freaking huge the wings are. Ghost Pros - Very easy to fly (and fly fairly well). I took to it immediately - Physically easy to fly. - Great gripper design, very ergonomic. - Airlocks do not inhibit collapse of leg wing, making barrel rolls and other transitions as easy as other suits. - Very stable while maxing out. - Familiar cable cutaway system. Cons - Though I found it easy physically, many people reported the exact opposite (most were transitioning from Phantoms). - Airlocks appear to only prevent leakage out the opposing inlets and do not maintain the same rigid inflation as the SM1. This results (sometimes) in significant tail flappage when flying dirty or backflying. - Big arm wing can get in the way of the handle at pull time since the wing loses inflation when brought back to pull position and the fabric goes loose. Blade Pros - Airlocks are like the Ghost in that they do not inhibit leg wing collapse/acrobatics. But unlike the Ghost, I never had any tail flappage. - Despite the big arm wings, this suit may have had the lightest arm pressure of any big-wing suit I've flown so far. - Arm position felt the most natural and easy to adapt to. - Easiest suit to backfly (of the 3) in my experience. In my first attempt I didn't lose any fallrate and was able to maintain flocking performance without much effort. The arm wings have light pressure even when backflying. - Very stable while maxing out. - Familiar cable cutaway system. Cons - Like the Ghost, the arm wing deflates in pull position and the loose fabric can get in the way of the handle (yes, even with the scalloped edge). - I experienced immediate loss of lift when releasing the grippers to make a dock (several times). I was able to subsequently compensate for this in anticipation. I've got a Super Mach 1 and I like it the best, but ultimately, I've realized I would have been happy with any of these suits. If money wasn't an issue, I'd probably buy a Ghost and a Blade just to have them since there was enough of a difference between the 3 that they each had their own "flavor". Hope this helps. Brian Brian Drake

The PD factory team was using Optimums for wingsuit jumps the first day of Chicks Rock this year. At one point, they did an incredible, 4-way swoop. Everyone was shocked to see they were using reserves, and getting such distance with them. Brian Drake

Ahh.. tonfly, not tonflight. Fault memory I guess. Thanks! Brian Brian Drake

I was at Perris yesterday and saw a really nice camera helmet. The logo said "tonflight" and someone who had talked to the owner of the helmet (I didn't talk with the owner directly) said his company had an internet store. I've done a few Google searches and can't find it. The helmet was similar to a Bonehead Optik, as it had a flat space on top, and on both sides. According to the 3rd party source, it cames standard with a hinged jaw cup and cutaway system and supposedly sold for around $300. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about and where I can find out more? Thanks, Brian Brian Drake

We could probably get a fairly nice sized group of skilled flockers on Sun, the 18th. I'll start putting the word out. Brian Drake

You're both referring to November (this month) dates, correct? I'll be there the 17-18. Sara and Troy are probably going to be there one of those days. Brian Drake

This looks like a great vid, but it's really hard to watch due to compression. When you re-compress tonight, go for the biggest file size you can since anyone downloading this has broadband and I'd rather wait a bit longer to actually be able to see what's going on. Brian Drake

I'm tentatively going. Probably for a few days after Christmas since last year, there wasn't much of a turn-out until then. Brian Drake

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Tracking is great prep for wingsuits, but you should also develop some solid RW skills since flocking isn't just about flying fast and a lot of group RW skills translate. Brian Drake

Link's you've posted recently are getting corrupted somehow. Here's the fixed link http://www.flylikebrick.com/playmovie.php?filename=flb_flightmanual_07.wmv Thanks for the video Jarno. I cut my teeth with these. Brian Drake

Guess not. I survived the day. No noticeable difference in openings. Thanks for the help. Brian Brian Drake