fedykin

heya vins, back, feeling dreadfull from last night.... right....here we go again! im in no way going to dispute that tiezzi has done a pretty good job promoting himself via all of the publications....paramag etc... however to claim that he and he alone 'invented' angled flight is vague and difficult to substantiate. When we're talking about inventing angled flight what do we mean? do we mean he was the very first person to ever fly in an angle? Do we mean that he and he alone devised a complete theory which spurned the development of the activity?or something else... I think it is far fetched to say that no-one had ever gone steeper than a normal track before tiezzi. Thats almost like saying that before Olav no-one had ever gone head down.... Each of these two individuals and those that were around them at the time were the figureheads of the time in a particular sphere fo activity. Tiezzi was pushing it very hard in Lapalisse organising and to be honest the stuff when i was there ages back was really hot(head down to atmo to track then back). But to claim sole ownership and development of everything with an angle is a bit far fetched. People undoubtably were moving steeper than normal tracking all over the world, Marco saw a niche and ran with it. Id strongly argue that the people that have done the most for angled flight are babylon. They've exposed more people than anyone else to multi dimensional flight. They're the biggest school is the world with probably the most experienced instructors knocking about. If they had contact with him at Lapalisse then yeah quiet possibly there was an exchange of ideas and in my opinon, they've run further with the concept than marco. I havent seen anything tiezzi's done that exceeds what was done in 2000 in france, whereas babylon have really been doing some very interesting stuff and having a more positive impact upon the community. All of these publication are great publicity for angled flight and no doubt for sometime tiezzi has been a very vocal and public advocate of angled flight, G too. each one of these grouping will no doubt try to represent thier interests however they see fit, tiezzi has done it in part by petitioning the FAI to some success in Freestyle and Freefly. The term Atmonauti(tm) to me is very much a marketing ploy. There is a niche market for medium experience jumpers that arent keen on coaching and like to be with groups. I do think that as pitching himself as the inventor of all angled flight isnt the best move. Olav did something similar by trademarking freefly, which did make him look fairly ridiculous. People in flyaway in Las Vegas were flying head down before him, people were sit flying and tracking before him. Tiezzi is first and foremost a load organiser who's meal ticket is angled flight and he's deperately trying to cling onto a place in the sport. by the way...SoloVinoFly is Marc Arnould. he's still a wierdo!

heya guys... the Funari thing....? I didnt hear it was him, seen pics of Olav and guys doing angled stuff 95, would be nice for him to post it on here. I saw the same thing on wikipedia, ive heard of the name, though to be honest nothing more. If he'd like to put some info on here it would be great, or failing that someone who knows how it got onto wikipedia? -------------------------------------------------------------- LIFTING BODIES here's the whole article A fleet of lifting bodies flown at NASA's Flight Research Center (FRC) at Edwards Air Force Base from 1963 to l975 demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle. These lifting bodies were designed to validate the concept of flying a wingless vehicle back to Earth from space and landing it like an aircraft at a pre-determined site. X-24A, M2-F3 and HL-10 on parked on lakebed These unique research vehicles, with their unconventional aerodynamic shapes, were the M2-F1, M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, X-24A, and the X-24B. The information the lifting body program generated contributed to the database that led to development of the space shuttle program. Aerodynamic lift - essential to flight in the atmosphere - was obtained from the shape of the vehicles rather than from wings as on a normal aircraft. The addition of fins and control surfaces allowed the pilots to stabilize and control the vehicles and regulate their flight paths. All but the M2-F1 were powered by the same type of XLR-11 rocket engine used in the Bell X-1 - the first aircraft to fly faster than the speed of sound. The M2-F1, a lightweight prototype, was unpowered. M2-F1 lifting body in flight Background The original idea of lifting bodies was conceived about 1957 by Dr. Alfred J. Eggers Jr., then the assistant director for Research and Development Analysis and Planning at the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, now the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif. NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, had earlier been investigating the problems associated with re-entry of missile nose cones. H. Julian Allen, another Ames engineer, determined that a blunt nose cone was a desirable shape to survive the aerodynamic heating associated with re-entry from space. Eggers found that by slightly modifying a symmetrical nose cone shape, aerodynamic lift could be produced. This lift would enable the modified shape to fly back from space rather than plunge to earth in a ballistic trajectory. These studies by Eggers, Allen, and their associates led to the design known as the M-2, a modified half-cone, rounded on the bottom and flat on top, with a blunt, rounded nose and twin tail-fins. This configuration and those of the later lifting bodies allowed them to be maneuvered both in a lateral and a longitudinal direction so they could be landed on a runway rather than simply parachuting into the ocean as did the contemporary ballistic capsules used in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. M2-F1 towed in flight by C-47 The Pioneering M2-F1 In 1962, FRC Director Paul Bikle approved a program to build a lightweight, unpowered lifting body as a prototype to flight test the wingless concept. It would look like a "flying bathtub," and was designated the M2-F1. Built by sailplane designer Gus Briegleb, it featured a plywood shell placed over a tubular steel frame crafted at the FRC. Construction was completed in 1963. The first flight tests saw the M2-F1 towed aloft by a hopped-up Pontiac convertible driven at speeds up to 120 mph across Rogers Dry Lake. These initial tests produced enough flight data about the M2-F1 to proceed with flights behind a NASA R4D tow plane at greater altitudes. The R4D (the Navy designation of the C-47 or civil DC-3) towed the craft to an altitude of 12,000 ft. where it was released to fly freely back to Rogers Dry Lake. NASA research pilot Milt Thompson flew the M2-F1 during the first series of tests. Typical glide flights with the M2-F1 lasted several minutes at speeds of 110 to l20 mph. More than 400 ground tows and 77 aircraft tow flights were carried out with the M2-F1 before it was retired. A historical artifact now owned by the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, the M2-F1 is on long-term loan to NASA Dryden and has been restored to flight-like condition. The Heavyweights The success of Dryden's M2-F1 program led to NASA's development and construction of two heavyweight lifting bodies based on studies at NASA's Ames and Langley research centers - the M2-F2 and the HL-10, both built by Northrop Corporation. The "M" refers to "manned" and "F" refers to "flight." "HL" comes from "horizontal landing" and "10" is for the 10th lifting body design that was investigated by Langley. The Air Force later became interested in lifting body research and had a third design concept, the X-24A, built by the Martin Company. It was later modified into the X-24B and both configurations were flown in the joint NASA - Air Force lifting body program at Dryden. The basic flight profile of the heavyweight lifting bodies involved being air-launched by NASA's modified NB-52B "mothership" at an altitude of about 45,000 feet. The XLR-11 rocket engine was then ignited and the vehicle accelerated to speeds of up to 1,100 mph and to altitudes of 60,000 to 70,000 feet. After the rocket engine was shut down, the pilots began steep glides towards the Edwards runway. As the pilots entered the final approach leg, they increased their rate of descent to build up speed and used this energy to perform a "flare out" maneuver and slow their landing speed to about 200 mph - the same basic approach pattern and landing speed of today's space shuttles. M2-F2 The first flight of the M2-F2 - which looked much like the M2-F1 - occurred on July 12, 1966 with Thompson again at the controls. By then, the same B-52 used to air launch the famed X-15 rocket research aircraft had been modified to also carry the lifting bodies into the air. The M2-F2 was dropped from the B-52's wing pylon mount at an altitude of 45,000 feet on that maiden glide flight. M2-F2 with F-104 chase The M2-F2 weighed 4,620 pounds without ballast, was roughly 22 feet long, and had a width of about 10 feet. On May 10, 1967, during the 16th glide flight, a landing accident severely damaged the vehicle and seriously injured the NASA pilot, Bruce Peterson. (Film footage of the crash was later used in the opening sequence of the popular 1970s-era television show, "The Six-million Dollar Man.") M2-F3 NASA pilots said the M2-F2 had lateral control problems that led to the crash, even though it had a stability augmentation control system. When the M2-F2 was rebuilt and redesignated the M2-F3, it was modified with an additional third vertical fin - centered between the tip fins - to improve control characteristics. M2-F3 drop from a B-52 The first flight of the M2-F3, with NASA pilot Bill Dana at the controls, occurred on June 2, 1970. It was a glide flight to evaluate changes in the vehicle's performance due to the modifications. The modified vehicle exhibited much better lateral stability and control characteristics than had the M2-F2. Over the next 26 missions, the M2-F3 reached a top speed of l,064 mph (Mach 1.6). Dana was the pilot on that high-speed mission, which took place on Dec. 13, 1972. The highest altitude reached by the M2-F3 was 71,500 feet on Dec. 20, 1972, the date of its last flight, with NASA pilot John Manke at the controls. A reaction jet control system, similar to thrusters used on orbiting spacecraft, was also installed on the M2-F3 to obtain research data about their effectiveness for vehicle control. As the M2-F3's portion of the lifting body program neared an end, it evaluated a rate command augmentation control system and a side-arm control stick similar to side-arm controllers now used on many modern aircraft. The M2-F3 is now on display in the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D. C. HL-10 The HL-10 was delivered to the FRC by Northrop in January 1966, and first flew some 11 months later on Dec. 22 of the same year. The pilot was Bruce Peterson, before he was injured in the M2-F2 accident. HL-10 lifting body landing The HL-10 was flown 37 times and set several program records. On Feb. 18, 1970, Air Force test pilot Maj. Peter Hoag flew it to 1,228 mph (Mach 1.86), the fastest speed reached by any of the lifting bodies. Nine days later, NASA's Bill Dana flew the HL-10 to 90,303 feet, the highest altitude reached by any of the lifting body craft. The HL-10 was also the first lifting body to fly supersonically - on May 9, 1969, with Manke at the controls. The HL-10 featured a longitudinally curved bottom and a laterally rounded top and had a delta planform. In its final configuration, three vertical fins, two of them canted outward from the body and a tall center fin, gave the craft directional control. A flush canopy blended into the smooth rounded nose. It was about 21 feet long, with a span of 13.6 feet. Its glide-flight weight was 6,473 lbs. and its maximum gross weight was over 10,000 lbs. Flights of the HL-10 contributed substantially to the decision to design the space shuttles without air-breathing engines that would have been used for powered landings. The HL-10 flew its final flight on July 17, 1970, and the craft is now is now on public display at the entrance to NASA Dryden. X-24A Built for the Air Force by Martin, the X-24A was a bulbous-shaped aircraft, with three vertical fins at the rear for directional control. It weighed 6,270 pounds without propellants, was just over 24 feet long, and had a width of nearly 14 feet. X-24A parked The first unpowered glide flight of the X-24A occurred on April 17, 1969, flown by Air Force Maj. Jerauld Gentry. Gentry also piloted the vehicle on its first powered flight on March 19, 1970. The X-24A was flown 28 times in a program which, like that of the HL-10, helped validate the concept that a wingless vehicle could be landed unpowered. Some three decades later, X-38 program managers elected to use the X-24A design to save money, since the existing X-24A aerodynamic database was complete. This limited the number of wind tunnel tests that would have been required for a totally new design. Fastest speed recorded by the the X-24A was 1,036 mph (Mach 1.6), and the maximum altitude reached by the craft was 71,400 feet. Both of those flights were flown by NASA research pilot John Manke, who was also the pilot on its final flight on June 4, 1971. X-24B The X-24B's design evolved from a family of potential re-entry shapes proposed by the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, each with higher lift-to-drag ratios. X-24B in flight To reduce the costs of constructing a research vehicle, the Air Force returned the X-24A to Martin for modifications that converted its bulbous shape into one resembling a "flying flatiron" - a rounded top, flat bottom, and a double-delta planform that ended in a pointed nose. Manke was first to fly the X-24B, a glide flight on Aug. 1, 1973. He was also the pilot on the first powered mission on Nov. 15, 1973. Among the final flights with the X-24B were two precise landings on the main concrete runway at Edwards, which showed that accurate unpowered re-entry vehicle landings were operationally feasible. These missions, flown by Manke and Air Force Maj. Mike Love, represented the final milestone in a program that helped write the flight plan for today's space shuttle landings. The final powered flight with the X-24B was on Sept. 23, l975, flown by Bill Dana. It was also the last rocket-powered lifting body flight flown at Dryden. Ironically, it was Dana who also flew the last X-15 rocket plane mission about seven years earlier. Top speed reached by the X-24B was 1,164 mph (Mach 1.75) by Love on Oct. 25, 1974. The highest altitude reached was 74,100 feet by Manke on May 22, 1975. The X-24B is now on public display at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB,Ohio. ------------------------------------------------------------- From what ive seen in this article, there is no data, or even suggestion that human bodies can create lift. This is a really interesting(mad really, look at the shape of them!) R+D project on creating airframes that can reenter the atmosphere and land safely. Keep in mind we are talking about airframes, not people. I dont actually see any data here suggesting that tenis balls or any shape can create lift, if there is, ive read it twice and not seen it. I know this does look interesting and does show that a unpowered airframe can glide and safely land, but we are talking about an airframe. Steel, smooth surfaces not crazily loaded can glide. Human bodies with t-shirts and belt buckels and loads more irregular drag creating surfaces simply dont create net lift. Ill say it again, are you moving upwards?

Okay G, I actually enjoy debating with you, probably more than some of the other personalities.... but Im not going to get into a name calling exercise, I think it both demeans you and me, so if you want to call people arrogant then maybe you could do it somewhere else... And yes, when aeroplanes engines cut out, they arent able to create positive lift and go down, and somethimes crash.... Ill throw the variables for lift and drag later on and describe how they affect the sphere of activity which is relevant to us. There are many paths to angled wisdom, many ways and coaches for people to discover this endeavor. Not just www.atmonauti.com When you stated that just because someone has done a couple jumps with Tiezzi doesnt mean that they understand everything. From what I have seen no-one has a complete understanding of horizontal movement, even Tiezzi admitted this to me. I think it was Marco C who said that just because youve done a couple jumps with Marco Tiezzi it doesnt mean you understand everything. To claim that your school and only your school has a full understanding of angled flight isnt true and Im not the only one out there that has learnt very quickly from incredible coached like IPPO FABBI and BABYLON. Im more than willing to accept your broad theory of angled flight in 'ATMONAUTI THEORY' if you leave it at that. Theory. Unproven and not bound by the scientific method. To gain this approval rigid independant testing methods should be applied and the sums must add up. Currently they dont, thats why you correctly call them a theory. But leave it at that, they dont hold up to scruitiny.

heya marco, ill pull the maths up for you to have a look at later lets hit the parachute term- parachutes are known as aerodynamic deaccelorators. they in themselves do not create lift but can change their angles of attack, and go slower or faster by changing the drag profile the same goes for wingsuits in terms of lift- are you going upwards? no you are not... you are merelely changing the drag profile more or less. its not the same as a wing being accelerated to move upwards those arent the facts...have a look at the following equations.... Lift is the sum of all the fluid dynamic forces on a body perpendicular to the direction of the external flow approaching that body. The mathematical equations describing lift have been well established since the Wright Brothers experimentally determined a reasonably precise value for the "Smeaton coefficient" more than 100 years ago,[2] but the practical explanation of what those equations mean is still controversial, with persistent misinformation and pervasive misunderstanding.[3] Sometimes the term dynamic lift or dynamic lifting force is used for the perpendicular force resulting from motion of the body in the fluid, as in an aerodyne, in contrast to the static lifting force resulting from buoyancy, as in an aerostat. Lift is commonly associated with the wing of an aircraft. However there are many other examples of lift such as propellers on both aircraft and boats, rotors on helicopters, sails and keels on sailboats, hydrofoils, wings on auto racing cars, and wind turbines. While the common meaning of the term "lift" suggests an upward action, the lift force is not necessarily directed up with respect to gravity. Lift is generated when an object turns a fluid away from its direction of flow. When the object and fluid move relative to each other and the object turns the fluid flow in a direction perpendicular to that flow, the force required to do this creates an equal and opposite force that is lift. The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object— these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs. The lift generated by an airfoil depends on such factors as the speed of the airflow, the density of the air, the total area of the airfoil, and the angle of attack. The angle of attack is the angle at which the airfoil meets the oncoming airflow (or vice versa). A symmetric airfoil must have a positive angle of attack to generate positive lift. At a zero angle of attack, no lift is generated. At a negative angle of attack, negative lift is generated. A cambered airfoil may produce positive lift at zero, or even small negative angles of attack. The basic concept of lift is simple. However, the details of how the relative movement of air and airfoil interact to produce the turning action that generates lift are complex. Below are several explanations of lift, all of which are different but equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. A fixed-wing aircraft's wings, horizontal, and vertical stabilizers are built with airfoil-shaped cross sections, as are helicopter rotor blades. Airfoils are also found in propellers, fans, compressors and turbines. Sails are also airfoils, and the underwater surfaces of sailboats, such as the centerboard and keel, are similar in cross-section and operate on the same principles as airfoils. Swimming and flying creatures and even many plants and sessile organisms employ airfoils; common examples being bird wings, the bodies of fishes, and the shape of sand dollars. An airfoil-shaped wing can create downforce on an automobile or other motor vehicle, improving traction. Aifoils- An airfoil is a device which gets a useful reaction from air moving over its surface. When an airfoil is moved through the air, it is capable of producing lift. Wings, horizontal tail surfaces, vertical tails surfaces, and propellers are all examples of airfoils. The human body is not an airfoil shape guys, no matter how much you want it to be While any object with an angle of attack in a moving fluid, such as a flat plate, a building, or the deck of a bridge, will generate an aerodynamic force perpendicular to the flow called lift, airfoils are more efficient lifting shapes, able to generate more lift (up to a point), and to generate lift with less drag.

this is getting a bit repetitive isnt it marco.... gravity affects us universally and all bodies with mass are affected by gravity(even some with no mass such as light being affected by super massive bodies like stars and black holes) this force pulls us to objects with greater mass. the force of gravity pulls us downwards. by moving our control surfaces we can change our angle of attack to a degree though where our center off mass can limit us(watch how really light and tall people have problems sticking it with a denser group in a steep and fast trace). this degree of angle of attack with the angled control surfaces drives us forward. not a great ratio, but definately enough to push us forward to play with the burble zone, or as you call it - no fly zone-, if the area of disturbed air which has recently been occupied. Accepted,by moving forward by angular deflection friction and drag is additionally created by the forward momentum. to be able to create workable lift a couple of very finite variables have to be in play such as independant acceration ie... propellor in a boat or a plane. we dont have one of these, added to the fact that our surface area is so irregular, we really are just drag machines. the atmonauti web site is very much trying to slam round pegs into square holes... ie.... making its theories fit piecemeal with dynamics that are more relevant to aeroplanes. the physics are universal, however comparing a human body falling through the air to an aeroplane with smooth surfaces and an independant power source isnt taking into account the diffent variables with each case. It a bit like comparing apples to CD players. If you want ill pull up the NASA maths from facebook and we can dispute the hard data because we are being a bit broad brush here. The Atmo web site is empirically based and written by skydivers for skydivers. It is not a scientific document written by aeronautical engineers, or based on hard science. In my opinion it is a bit like accupuncture. The theory doesnt hold true, isnt scientific but works to a degree. Understanding where and where not to fly is usefull. Some of the theories hold ture though not for the reasons given. I think the danger in circulating such a document is that it could possibly be an attempt to pass of a theory as proven. Conjecture as hard science.

hey naughy again... Sounds like your internally debating the subject on both sides, i do that a fair bit... feels like having an argument with yourself, odd isnt it! On the second perspective ill say this. As formation set up and 'no go/burble area'. The angle/zone of disturbed air is typically at the same angle as the angle of movement ie....steep angle, steep burble. This is why a more aggressive angle can allow people to stack it up with more people and closer + a more aggressive fall rate due to a smaller surface area exposed to the relative wind. The faster fall rate allows heavier people to have more range and get back up. Steeper angles overall tend to give you a shorter ride due to the higher fall rate. Tracing(Steeper angle) can be incredibly dynamic, really interesting stuff. What is a worthwhile question is WHAT IS OPTIMAL IN RELATION TO BODY WINGLOADING/BMI FOR MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE.

heres the counter to that counter(???) to say that there is no relative wind from below during atmonauti is a bit curious The relative wind will impact and affect the object/person/seagull irrespective of angle of attack/orientation Dead air...? Do you mean a burbble? Or a lower or higher pressure area?Burbbles are disturbed air above an object typically in the same angle of disturbance. 'With no air from below to deflect...'. In a vacum i would tend to agree, but we are talking about human bodies moving through the atmosphere arent we?

the rig thing.... Heya naughty! the weightlessness thing....hmmm thats an odd one Not too sure how to awnser that, though yeah i have felt that a bit too I havent felt the same thing in tracing or tracking, tracking(going fast that is) takes more physical effort when im hiting it. Atmo on your front is pretty relaxed relative to other positions/angles..... hmmmm Ill take a wild stab and throw a guess out, though itll only be just that. Given that your establishing a drag anchor on your knees, which is relatively biomechanically efficent, and your sticking the angle with your torso, and if the angle is fairly mild, the overall drag is pretty evenly distributed. Not alot of effort is involved if your not having to move around too much or react to others, then the whole thing is pretty relaxed and effortless. Comapre this to head down. Even when sticking out a relaxed daffy at a comfortable fall rate, there is a bit more effort and due to the higher airspeed, a bit more force all over the body. Probably purely psychological, amplified by how much more exertion is used by other positions ie... sit, head down, trace, track.... That is a tough one.... Too much room for speculation! The rig thingey!- Look at the odd frame that is created by a rig when its worn by a person. When hitting an angle the gap is exposed. This will cause it to move up. It pivots upwards on its connection points ie.... shoulders and hips. The rig weighes less than a person and therefore has a slower fall rate. It will accerate away from the body via the rear bottom edge of the container thus lifting up and forwards. Does look odd doesnt it! My G4 has got the new lumbar support straps and i do tend to tighen it up a bit so i dont notice it too much. Also when im tracing fast forward, or slidding down on my side to get to an atmo group the riser covers can easily get blasted open. For these reasons i tend to tighten my chest strap up a fair bit, definately dont like the feel of a rig getting slightly 'peeled' off of me! Thos new micron magnetic riser covers look really interesting, they might be able to hold up under a side slide better than mine.

ahhh..... Dave, looks like we might be able to have something approaching an intelligent conversation! Id agree and the overwheming amount of emprical evidence does suggest and prove that the jump does tend to last for a longer period though not for the reasons that some people state ie... lift I believe and the tunnel evidence will support my hypothesis. Greater surface area, ceteris paribus(latin for all things being equal, a term we tend to use in economics) means slower fall rate, which in term means longer ride. The larger surface area exposed to the relative wind in tracking, tracing, atmo... whatever means longer jumps. In the tunnel the more movement the higher up someone goes, same thing in the sky ie... stalling to get back up to the formation, double clutching, flicking, whatever you call it. The fact that it looks like a wing because of the stepper angle does lead one into direct physical comparisons ie... wings and lift. I believe employing logic like this is a bit faulty ie... Mistaking the wood for the trees and vice versa. The physics at play make lift an impossibility. It's understandable that comparisions are made as we tend to spend so much time around aeroplanes each day and directly associate the two activities, though confusing the variables at play results in comparing apples to armadillo's. Angular deflection, surface area and drag. I believe these terms are more relevant to the study of human flight. Not lift. The romantic mindset endures, it is impressive. But then again, even the Italians amoungt us will appreciate the fact that the unbridled passion and excess of Nero did little to add to Rome's spleandour. I would attribute more positive influence to the detachment Stociism of Marcus Aurelius. y tu Tiezzi?

forgot to post something!- I think the model for lift generation holds true for highly loaded wings such as human bodies, the model has been used for long enough and is proven. there are a couple posed questions which are a bit ambigous... one of which is 'does the human body generate lift'. Crunch the data, i have. The amount generated is laughable. Some are trying to take the rig moving or t shirts as proof. This falls faily short of being convincing. Dispute the model, dispute the maths and dispute the laws of physics. Its pretty hard to do so. There is alot of pseudo science being thrown around. Some people are casually using visual evidence to jump to an conclusion without looking at the aerodynamics which are the basis of our undersatnding of the whole field of flight. They are also casually ignoring other aspects which dont support thier conclusion. I think the term of lift can probably be related to a fairly romantic view of this endeavor. You see it in other sports like climbing, scuba diving and base. None of us are flying, its falling. We arent swimming like fish etc.... I tend to view the forces at play in angle flight and vertical flight in the same manner. We generate more or less drag to create angular deflection to move across the sky. Lift probably isnt an appropraite term.

The rig phenonenon as explained on the deleted facebook thread is this.... When hitting a bit of an angle the gap between the back and the rig is exposed catching air. It pivotes unwards on the attachment points on your body ie... chest strap and hips. Also the rig is lighter than a person is and moves upwards. Somepeople ie...Tiezzi and his guys, think that this is in itself hard evidence that a human body generates lift. The other evidence that they push is a picture of someone with thier t shirt gettting blown up while back tracking/atmo'ing.... On thier web site a number of basic diagrams describing lift generated by a wing moving through the atmosphere and then they dirrectly compare hgher and lower angles with the wing and a human body in the air. The conculsion made is that these two modles are directly comparable. A couple of discrepencies do exists though. 1) the basic calculations for how much an airframe generates are readily available. Add them up(NASA has a good site). Infinitely more drag is produced than lift. The amount is laughable really. 2) Without an independant means of power(a propellor), were not really talking about flight in meaningfull terms. Gliding an extreem push at that In terms of high and low angles as they relate to how much angular deflection is created and speed, that is very quantifiable. Very interesting as well as they relate to your personal 'wing loading' or BMI(body mass index). Like your signature block..... can't make a horse surf!!!

well Vins, the posts deleted were the ones where i was debating whether or not lift can be generated by a human body, which no one could on hard scientific terms refute. but hey according to marco cicco ' science is an attempt to confuse people'.... everyone have a look at the forum and have a look at the bit that says 'post deleted'. Tiezzi refers to statemtents that ive made without having the whole context of the argument there.

No posts deleted...hmmm. is that why theres over a dozen slots there saying 'POST DELETED'. Andy Newell didnt remove his post or quit the group, he was removed with his posts. As was I. Seems odd that the two people that disagreed with Tiezzi were removed. Whats that all about? Removing someone because they have a different point of view. Is that open and engaging behavior.

fair one! sorry to say that Marco Tiezzi has deleted all of the posts on there. Really odd that he took off all of the posts that dont coincide with his point of view. funny guy!

Taking some friends over to CA. We'll probably wana do 7-10 a day. Where is a safe bet? Also would be nice to have other guys to mix it up with too.... cheers

hey everyone thats on facebook, go onto the group atmonauti... very interesting debate on whether or not tracing exists, or whether or not everything with an angle is atmo. like to hear everyones point of view! cheers p

Well.... again, you've taken a number of very sepparate issues and confused them somewhat. The tunnel on the whole doesnt tend to focus on what i would consider to be safety issues(though innevitably it will contribute to it) what most people focus on is skill refinement ie... getting better at whatever it is that they do. So to that end, i dont think you'll see a super pronounced decrease in free fall collisions. In terms of canopy work, well yes incidents have spiked a number of times, thats got more to do with culture(the UK is horrendous for it) and educations(not bad). Ive been in the sport for a bit of time and i can attest to how much freefly(all aspects 3 way, Vrw, angled etc..) have developed since wind tunnels really came to saturation point(not there yet!). People are doing things that would normally take 10 000 jumps in less than 500, have a look at Adam Mattacola, bad assed, only 500 i think. The sport is on fast forward which is great for everyone. This technology is accessable to all, jumpers and non jumpers alike. On a similar note, jet ski's. As i understand it they tend to get used to access really big waves. Waves soo big that no human could possibly paddle fast enough. And as a result of the development people are doing things not possible before. Positive development. I think so. Rather similar to skydiving. If you want to develop more and faster in ways not realisitically possible in the sky(time and spacial reference limitations) then use the tunnel. If you want to take 1000's of jumps getting to where someone can be in a week, then crack on. I think its a bit like a caveman snubbing a zippo.

Thats an interesting perspective... You've taken a number of sepparate issues and blended them up a fair bit, ill throw my 2p into the mix. Tunnels- No other technology has sped up the development and progression of skydivers as much as tunnels. The skill set development of all jumpers that choose to integrate is unbelievable. I know a couple people that took a pretty puritan attitude to the tunnel, oddly enough before they went into the tunnel. Some things you cannot learn in the tunnel such as tracking, but still the body awareness you develop fast forwards your development in the air. The sport is whatever it is to you. If its all about being in the air, then great though to be honest you'd probably enjoy it more, faster if you integrate the tunnel. The BPA- id agree with them to be frank(a first) that the tunnel is the best introduction to the sport and a great way of bringing more people into the sport For a host of reasons. Other ways to scare ourselves... Im not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the primary focus of what you and others should do in the sport is fear seeking? if so, then thats an interesting perspective, it may make skills progression a bit slow.... Im extreemly critical of the BPA on the whole though like governments, the members/citizens tend to get the government they deserve. I wouldnt point the finger so much at the council as much as the members.

Happy with this-- Just a quick note on safety …as we will be flying multiple aircraft no turns over 90 degrees will be allowed on any landing area during this event. very enlightened!

can't say how disapointed i am about that. my team and i have done the christmas boogie for maybe 5 years. when i told them that the 180 thing is still in place, no one wants to go, they're that pissed it doesnt look like we'll back any time soon unless things change. its not just the 180, its the thinking behind it, the way the DZ has changed, not the same really. i for one really hope they get their act together and start listening to customers. really is a shame, i really love the place.

N/A

it would depend on your set up in terms of the main and alt sharing a corner, however it would solve a number of issues and make things alot safer if landing styles were divided ie... straight in vs swooping. even if both shared a corner it would be safer than 180 madness

Far be it from me to be critical of knee jerk reactions based around saving revenue from military contracts but... it might be a better idea to manage the situation instead of outright banning swooping, or even worse, encouraging people to do dangerous approaches. what about having a swoop landing area, and another for non swoopers, that way everyones happy. put the swoopers in the secondary landing area...?

Whats happening at eloy at christmas, anyone know? Also, does anyone know if the ridiculously misguided 180(the most dangerous approach)rule still applies there?Cheers

persistance, they are rather poor at awnsering the phone or emails, keep on trying, it took me the better part of a dozen emails and calls to get a responce. sorry if that isnt terribly helpfull or if freezone choose to go mental over that comment...