Veis

I don't know if that was intended, but you essentially confirmed what I wrote about. I will add that in parachutes it is usually required to get the maximum possible lift force. And the scope of application of parachutes in which the lifting force is structurally reduced for the sake of maneuverability or speed is very limited, like CRW rotations, or swoop (and XRW).

It is usually stated in a very simplified form, only for the layer at the surface of the wing, as it could be calculated at the beginning of the 20th century. Hence the discrepancies. If you integrate for the entire volume of air affected by the wing (as is done with modern computers), then there will be no discrepancy. And the "lifting force" considered relative to the perpendicular to the direction of movement, as expected, will decrease sharply in all directions except for optimal horizontal flight.

Models and some aircraft can fly this way due to the large relative engine power to mass, but it is very inefficient in terms of fuel consumption. I'm not sure if I can explain this with the help of a translator. For low-speed wings with a thick profile, such as parachutes, the main contribution to lift is different. Air is a very heavy gas, each cubic meter weighs more than a kilogram (at sea level). And this mass is forced by the leading edge to move during flight, transmitting an impulse to the molecules. Basically, the air is diverted upwards, due to the asymmetry of the profile and angle of attack. The mass of air moves along the arc of a circle, experiences centripetal acceleration. And behind the front of the air wave from the leading edge, which has a high density, a "bubble" of low pressure air forms above the rest of the upper surface of the wing. Thus, the weight of the volume of space, together with the moving wing (and the entire aircraft), is largely balanced by the Archimedes force, as long as the flow velocity and laminarity regime is observed. This "theory" has long been disproved by experiments in wind tunnels, (with smoke and strobe shutter). These flows do not have to meet with the same instantaneous flow rate, and they may not mix behind the trailing edge of the wing for a long time, moving in parallel at different speeds and interacting minimally.

In the photo with the towing system attached to the slider, as a full RDS, it can be seen that the lines direction is rotated at a significant angle to the weather vane (PC). The angle is about 45 degrees - but with a large suit, and when performing a "braking" this angle will be smaller, but shading and low pressure area larger. For these reasons, but not because of the lesser desire to rise by deployed wing.

Ok, please explain to me how the slider can be almost all the way up, yet the canopy is nearly fully inflated. The answer is simple: the figure shows the center section, this happens when the wing is inflated about the width of the slider. And in the video, the wing is turned 90 degrees, with the stabilizer on the stream. It doesn't make much matter. This is how the filling of the center section looks like in experiments with a towing system.

I first heard about the physical causes of lift in the aircraft model club in the house of creativity of pioneers 35 years ago. Later, I repeatedly encountered such discrepancies, and within one chapter of a textbook or publication, a definition with a perpendicular to the motion vector can be used at the same time - and an illustration next to it, where the lifting force is depicted as the opposite of weight)) This historical incident has no practical impact, since all flying vehicles have long been designed not in abstract "aerodynamics", but in gas-dynamic programs that simulate the interaction of air particles with each other, their groups and volumes, and with surfaces.

However, the aerodynamic structures that I develop and produce according to the "wrong" theory are quite workable. And all their disadvantages are from a lack of quality and financing, but not theory)) To simplify understanding, you need to combine this scheme: and this video in your thoughts, which remained in another topic after the separation.

This final sample. Valkyrie. https://youtu.be/cSsOGEYBpYY

There are many atavisms and myths in parachutes they are based on the "knowledge" of physics... The slider was invented for vertical openings because there were no others at that time. In horizontal opening, the body towing the parachute with its mass, forcing it to rise during deployment, like any wing. Like for paraglider or kite. A short pushing of the flow alongside the surface of the slider is enough for it to fall.

Politics is such a convenient and delicious explanation for everything that accidents will inevitably happen. And not only with cutters. Tell these guys that they tried in vain to convince us 30 years ago...

And how much Shore hardness does this add to the cutter? )

Are you sure that the plasticine cutter is dangerous only for Russians? )) A strong worldview...

It's still more interesting. The slider involves: aerodynamic drag, friction of the lines against rings or grommets, and friction of the lines among themselves. Some manufacturers compensate for the deficit of the first at the expense of the rest. Including by limiting the small diameter of the hole. Previously, the function of the slider was mainly to put in order the opening - and now it is mainly to regulate its dynamics. Therefore, friction began to be used more, and sometimes excessively. So, rommets made of brass, which have a greater thermal conductivity than stainless steel, are unsuitable. And stainless steel grommets, especially thin-walled ones and with an acute insufficient contact surface, manage to get very hot in local spot. In my opinion, the grommets in the slider are a vestige from which it is high time to be in the main parachutes.

In order not to make a mistake when choosing a container, you also need to know the height. The used container may be dilapidated, especially if the ground was wet...)

X-fire 113. Domed, collapsable, front and side pockets.

Mars's support reaction:

In our industry, only a proven corpse is a failure. In this sense, Mars is doing well, this is not a fail, but just a brand's study of the territory filled with old rakes... Leftovers from other brands and their failures.

The cutter, basically repeating a trusted design, turned out to be unexpectedly ruined. I doubt the success of a demonstration similar to Airtek...

Everything one time happens for the first time... Does everyone remember Airtec promotional video with cutting steel cable?

By the look of the used cutter, it does not cut but munch.

Oh, the expression "it's the same as a bullet made of shit" shone with a new light..

Dealer reviews are of two types: 1) jumped 100... 250, so far none has broken, everything is fine. or: 2) the product is defective! My hands tore 8 pieces in a row, and I did not even install them, return my money, pests! As you know, the second one is very bad for business. And many people forget to leave good reviews.

Dealers want stronger glue, to protect against the fool. And users want the maximum resource - which is reduced by strong glue. That's the paradox ))

Our dealers do not agree, they are sometimes approached by dissatisfied customers who have "tested" the strength of non-installed bands. Despite all the warnings...

I did not seek to repeat the original, our colleagues had such attempts. It turned out that the glued stows that can perform the PIA test unbound, serve less. They are weakened by strong glue.