Re: [MontBlanc] Wingsuit fast starts
MontBlanc wrote:
Wings with lower stall speed create more lift at low air speed. So you don't have to increase the angle to start moving forward. And they accept more angle too before stalling (i don't know the English words to describe the angle compare to ground, and the angle compare to air flow, witch is the interesting one)
Well, stall speed _is_ a given angle of attack for a specific aircraft. It's the definition of stall speed. Airspeed does not determine when a stall occurs, only AoA. The only reason we speak of stall speed is that it's easy for a pilot to look at his airspeed indicator and see if he's in a stall or not, or if he's getting close to one, because the AoA also determines his airspeed.
As long as a falling object displaces air at an angle from the direction of the relative wind, it's going to generate lift. Now, it's also going to generate drag, and the sum of these vectors are your glide. High AoA is a high lift, high drag configuration e.g. and that's why we flare our canopies.
If you want your suit to start to fly early, you want to clear something. In order to do so, you must have high glide early on. So we want to have as much lift as possible, with the least amount of drag possible. The suit that will start to fly the fastest must have the highest L/D ratio, all other things being equal. Which they're not. It's possible to have a poor L/D ratio early in the jump because your suit is creating a lot of drag, due to e.g. pressurization issues. A small suit with relatively big and well placed inlets will pressurize faster, but it will not be able to generate as much lift as a bigger suit, thus having a lower L/D ratio overall. But it might still start to fly sooner.
So after three seconds, suit/jumper configuration A might have a glide ratio of 2, but that's about as good as it's going to get for the duration of this jump. Meanwhile, suit/jumper configuration B might have a glide ratio of 1.8 after three seconds, but his L/D will still improve and at 4 seconds it might be up at 3.
So the question might not only be about which suit starts to fly the fastest, but also which suit will start to fly the fastest relative to its overall performance? The fastest increase in glide in time from launch to "terminal"? Imagine the curve where you have the L/D ratio on the Y axis and time on the X axis. A function of time that determines your L/D. I guess the question is, what can this curve look like? Will it be linear? Which factor can I look for in a suit that will probably yield a certain L/D over time curve?
The L/D ratio of a wingsuit is very complex. You can not calculate it, you have to do empirical testing, and then you have to rely on the "all other things being equal". Or you can assume things, because sometimes you just know that a prodigy will not outperform a V4, until the day you see someone who's a really shitty or a really good pilot, but these generalizations are often times good enough, because we can determine if the performance we see from the shitty pilot is because of the pilot himself just by looking at him flying, and then we can discard that data. Problem is, we might have a bias.
I think AoA will be the major factor in determining the L/D over time curve. So it really is up to the jumper. But that's my personal, non-scientific view.
MontBlanc wrote:
Wings with thin profile don't create much lift at low air speed
It's not really applicable to liken a wingsuit to a traditional, rigid, cambered airfoil. There's no laminar flow over the wings of a wingsuit for example. I would say that you are correct though from observations, but I still don't know why that is. It's not some mystery to mankind, it's just that I don't have the math background to figure it out for myself and there's not a lot of information to look for.
Again, I'm just relating my understanding here and it might be wrong. But having had discussions about lift and drag with skydivers who think "lift" is about being "light in a formation/floaty", I just want someone to step up and either put forth a valid reason of why I'm wrong and explain it to me so that I understand, or confirm my views.