Basejumper.com - archive

This was the rough draft of my thesis for the honors program at my school

Its just an idea

Have at it

BTW, its linked to some free web hosting because the file is about 1.5 megs, too big to put on here

I re uploaded it as a .doc file...just make sure you use microsoft word...not notepad because you definitely wont be able to see it properly.

http://www.box.net/shared/fid43li6sy

@ milkflyrockclimb.
tip: Try saving it as a .doc file instead of .docx. and maybe the majority could view it without downloading a 27 meg viewer if I am not mistaken.
Take care,
space

that's great!

Could you elaborate a little bit on the position of the virtual skydiver relatively to the air flow?

Especially - was the angle of attack constant, or calculated by the program?

I was wondering the following :

-The added surface adds a potentially higher l/d - only if used in the right position (otherwise it only changes the fall rate since you can just "brick down" in a ws, even fly backwards)

-So, if the model is rigid and autostable, adding surface to the foot will move the center of mass a little bit closer to the leading edge relatively to the respective chord of each model (the chord being longer with the device)

-Thus pushing the whole model a little bit more "head down" - and if the model is a little bit arched backwards (shoulders up - stable) then it will decrease the angle of attack, making it more efficient (less close to 90°)

So i was wondering if you tried to extrapolate the results to a skydiver at the most efficient angle of attack & most efficient position (belly up, shoulders down) at terminal velocity - to get a rough idea of the l/d variation you can get with your device.

Anyway thanx a lot for sharing, it's a really good work with cool ideas!

hey man, thanks for the comments and questions! I'm glad you enjoyed reading through it.

To answer some of your questions:

1) The jumper was placed in a position completely perpindicular to the relative wind in the simulation. The data was so enormous, it took days for the computer just to analyze one run, so I simply didnt have enough time to do more tests with the jumper in other directions. When I get more time, I would love to play around with the jumper in different positions to try and optimize the track given the tracking devices. Thanks, thats a great idea.

But in the end, the jumper in the position that was modeled exhibited extra forces in the 'Z' direction that meant essentially the jumper was not bricking down, but rather, moving forward.

Thanks!

Kevin

PS, if you think I didnt fully answer your question, I'd be more than happy to try and go into more detail with you, or if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask!