Basejumper.com - archive

Looking for some insight and advice on this condition:
- I've never experienced it while skydiving, only in base and it only happens when going from best glide or a partial flare to a steep dive , but the whole suit will get a little bouncy from front to back. I was thinking that some air from the forward speed was contacting the top surface because of the steeper angle of attack and causing this ?
( I fly a1 and use very little arm sweep while diving ) thanks

The bouncy feeling can come from either physical inputs (you reacting) or due to a loose arm sleeve or general suit fit that causes the arm or leg wing to move seperate from your inputs, causing buffeting. Essentially a flapping airframe.
Imagine doing tight acrobatics with an airplane with 20 cm of 'play' on the ailerons/flaps.

Otherwise there is no reason why a suit cant fly from belly all the way to headdown and back without any buffeting, motion or otherwise issues.

Aside from training (a couple of 100+ skydives vs 'tryig it' in base), I suggest looking at (super)tight suit fit, and no issue with inverting leading edge in flight. As that can also cause sudden drag and unwanted movement during steeper dives.

Training it a lot in the (safer) skydive environment is key to make sure you don't run into trouble...

This is called the point of back deflection. Where more air is going over your wing then under it. Learning to fly this point in any big suit stably is important to terrain flying.
You can fly this point with skydiving training.

If you are concerned about something like this happening while BASE jumping, you should probably skydive some more first man. Fuck around with your suit, do barrel rolls, wing-overs and all sorts of wierd shit until you can do pretty much everything without worrying about recovery.

I know exactly what you're talking about, I call it backwinding, which is a sailing term and what basemenace said about more air on the top surface than the bottom. Not many people understand this concept and it's already put some on the bfl. You won't be able to practice it in skydiving because you will never be able to get your speeds as slow as in base. The thing you can practice in skydiving is diving with your head and shoulders and not your arms. It's the same movement you use as when going from belly to head down .This type of dive will keep your speeds high and in reality is your only real "margin". It all comes down to the air pressure on the different surfaces of the suit , when you go from best glide to a steep dive you can increase the top skin surface pressure to exceed the bottom skin pressure ( which is the 'bounce' ) so what you need to do is either a diving start to build bottom skin pressure early or start your dive earlier and slowly to build the pressure more gradually ( as basemenace said to find the point of deflection ) which means planning the line far in advance.

actually true


Hmm, that is demonstrably False. This is a perfect example of an Orange suit that fits balls-tight losing it in exactly the manner the OP describes, right next to a green suit that fits nice and comfy, forward to the 20 sec mark: http://www.nbcnews.com/...ch-alps-402872387611(it’s worth the wait for the ad, as it is a perfect illustration of pitch instability).


A terrible and misleading analogy from an outdated school of thought.


True! Obviously. But that’s just regurgitating the same tired advice through a different blowhole. To frame the above as useful information given in response to what is actually a valid question is not cool, IMO.


Take this free advice for what it’s worth:

What I think the OP is referring to, some people call it speed-wobbles. I’ve heard people say “whomps”. It happens to most of us at some point when pushing our suits steeper, or we feel it coming and then back off before it does happen. The root of it is this:

Every airfoil has a stagnation point. It is where the flow encountering your leading edge splits. Some goes up, some goes down. That point of split moves on the leading edge of the profile as the Angle of Attack changes. There are a lot of variables that influence the movement of the stagnation point (arm and rest-of-body position, flight angle changes), but mainly it is influenced by your AoA.

How does it affect us?
As you adjust your angle, the stagnation point moves on the leading edge of your wing – it moves up, or it moves down. It can move up and down quite rapidly, it turns out. Your arm is the leading edge. If you lower your Angle of Attack to fly steeper, the stagnation point moves higher (toward the top surface of your wing), more flow will end up on the top surface and you will feel your arm be forced quickly “down”. If you make a tiny (or not so tiny) adjustment, the stagnation point can very rapidly end up lower on the LE and then more flow will be on the bottom surface of your suit. If this happens in quick succession, as it often does when learning to fly wingsuits steep and fast, then you will experience what you are talking about and what the orange suit in the video above experienced. The answer to learning steep flight is in understanding the relationship between your leading edge, AoA, flight angle, and how you manage your body movements when you go fast and steep.

As for suit character, and this is a bit more abstract, but people understand it intuitively: the cleaner, harder (as in firm), and more efficient a wingsuit leading edge is, the more difficult it will be to manage at steeper flight paths and lower AoAs (provided it resembles a wing profile). A slightly soft leading edge can actually be easier to fly at the steepest angles than a perfectly hard and smooth one because it is more forgiving of varied arm positions and it is easier to warp your LE into a position that works for you.

As BASEMenace says, learning to fly this “point” in any suit is a real thing that the best pilots spend time on. It’s perhaps the most important thing in learning to fly big suits safely at steeper angles. Over the past few years we have seen the favored technique of terrain flying change from an “arms up and back” very stable (but less efficient) position, to an “arms more level with shoulders” more aggressive position, which Scotty Bob favors. It’s faster, to the point that one guy likes to blame him for speeding up his videos (hilarious), but it is also less stable and requires more practice. The “arms more level with shoulders” is the position we use when racing wingsuits at steeper flight paths.

There are some things to think about that may help: What works for me is trying to not over-tension the suit at the wrist. Pushing as hard as you can into the leading edge of the suit at your wrist will rob you of some sensitivity in your arm wing. Instead, try putting lengthwise tension into the suit higher on the arm and pushing into the leading edge more in the middle of your arm. This should leave your forearm, wrist, and hands a bit more free to deal with the micro-adjustments that you need to make in order to maintain stability and keep the stagnation point more stable in the middle of your leading edge.

Find this point gradually. Try to ease into a steeper flight path and lower AoA very gently, by degrees. When you feel yourself reaching that teetering point, stay fluid in your arms but don’t let off the lengthwise tension of the suit until you have to. Then reset and try again.

If this is occurring from what you think is best-glide to a transition to faster flight, you might be flying much too slowly to begin with. Hard to diagnose from here, but speed is generally the answer to most problems in WS BASE.

The stagnation point is also related to stall. This page has some good explanations, in particular the one from Peter Kampf with accompanying photo of a stall warning vane: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ve-stagnation-points That image is useful fuel for a thought exercise. If you imagine how that vane works, and when it activates the alarm, then think about how your suit feels when you’re too flat or head high and slow, you can get a feel for how understanding the stagnation point is relevant at our slowest (near stall) speeds as well.

If you have heard it’s cool to be anti-Bernoulli when trying to understand flight, don’t get too caught up in the fact that the stagnation point is often mentioned in concert with Bernouilli’s Equation. The main point here is how rapid changes in AoA (pilot induced) cause the speed wobbles. Understanding the root cause is the first step in addressing it.

I hope that is of some help.

-Matt

(edited to add attachment)

While Matt was being correct on most of the aerodynamics issues in his post, I would like to refer to this paragraph:

“As for suit character, and this is a bit more abstract-----A slightly soft leading edge can actually be easier to fly at the steepest angles than a perfectly hard and smooth one because it is more forgiving of varied arm positions and it is easier to warp your LE into a position that works for you. “

Basically, he is trying to say that loose fit at the leading edge has some aerodynamics advantages, particularly at high alpha (angle of attack, AoA). I would strongly disagree on that. The whole industry that is dealing with semi-rigid airfoils (parachutes, paragliders, WS, and hang gliders to some extent) are constantly striving towards more rigid airfoil, particularly leading edge, in order to get smoother and more predictable airfoil, and as a consequence a desired and predictable airflow, with a final goal of more performance. I have never ever heard that someone is trying to make leading edge softer, and as a result, completely unpredictable in shape, and performance. On the contrary, everybody is trying to improve leading edge shape and pressurization, using different methods e.g. cross bracing, semi rigid inserts (ribs, LE profiles, etc…), in order to get stable airfoil that will have predictable performance in all flight regimes (flight envelope). Having soft, deformable leading edge is just adding more unknown variables to already very complex WS aerodynamics, because the WS as a whole is aerodynamic body that is constantly changing its whole shape during the flight, since flyers are constantly making control inputs with the whole body and all exteremities.

I realize that not everyone here speaks english as a first language, and that my post had a lot of words in it. In the small chance that this was a legititmate misunderstanding, and not a case of trying to twist what I wrote, I will point out for you what you missed and / or misunderstood.


You are incorrect in two ways:

1. I wrote “easier to fly” but you seem to have read “higher performance”. I assume you know the difference. It is a very important distinction in wingsuit flying.

2. You seem to be mixing up high and low AoA, which I’m sure (I hope) you understand, but your mistake may confuse other people reading.
Or I confused you by writing "steep" instead of "low" (AoA is not relative to the horizon), but obviously we are discussing steep/fast flight in those paragraphs.


Yeah dude, that’s our industry, and the comp results prove that I agree with you. As you know, in 2015 we made a race suit with a smoother and more rigid airfoil than anyone else’s including (by a large margin) yours, and everyone has seen the results.

Best,

-Matt

Much respect to you Robi but I would strongly disagree! He said that softer leading edges 'can be easier to fly,' which is not at all the same thing as 'some aerodynamic advantages.'

He can answer for his self but to me he means that for people like me with not so much wingsuit experience it can be easier to fly steeper angles than with harder edges... just like regular-pressure canopies are easier for less experienced pilots to control than x-brace canopies which are stiffer. In both case, 'more forgiving' is good for the less experienced until they figure it out. After they do then of course we all want better performance and everything you say about that is true.

thank you both for great comments. I learn a lot from those two posts!

Coaching people fulltime on flying wingsuits from steep to complete headdown and backwards, its especially beginners benefitting from tighter fit and a smooth leading edge. Sloppy response and unpredictable suit behaviour is never in anyones favor, regardless of what marketing tries to tell you.

I could write that BMW makes low quality cars that drive like shit and have a funny interior smell, but most intelligent people would see that fabrication for what it is: Complete and total bullshit, coming from someone who probably sells Mercedes.

I wish that trying to raise the standard of discussion here wasn’t such a battle. Some people come here to contribute, others come for information, and then there is a tiny-loud group who come here just to spew stinky diarrhea shit all over the place. Two of the three groups are useful.

Could your airfoil orientation be below the relative wind? Is it mechanically possible? Trying to think through it, it takes away any source of lift you have and makes you fall out of the sky, but is that right?

Are you ever steep enough that you aren't trying to get lift and just trying to get max "thrust"? Obviously I have a very limited understanding of wingsuits.

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner!!!!!!!!

Yes, what the original post was about is this point, where lift from deflection is no longer a goal, and efficient decsent is.
Old school theory will tell you that folding arm wings back is the best stable way to increase speed and decrease angle of attack...diving and gaining power.
However, by maintaining a rigid air foil (stiff arms...whole wing dive), you can build more power and maintain. Treat the entire wing as a diving surface.
The reason this method is not popular is simple...most wingsuit pilots SUCK at freeflying. Most have no knowledge of flying any wing surface other than the bottom on there belly and the top on there back...with very small AOA changes. Maintaining steep angle flight in a big wingsuit is a skill to learn...its doable in all suits, as long as the inlet design allows there wings to stay inflated at those steep angles.
Old designs had major problems with this...leg wing deflations were very common the early days of Brevent...where most really started figuring out multi angle dynamic terrain flying lately.
Proprietary arguments aside...learn to fly steep, learn your recovery arc, learn how your suit reacts to extremely steep angles...and go put it to practice in the sky.
Oh yeah, and try to smile too...this shit is still fun :)

You have made more than one post that would slot you into that group. So maybe you could come down of that high horse now.

+1

(... as I refill my popcorn for this show)

Much respect to you too Jarno but you puts words into his post that he did not use; he said a less rigid leading edge mean more forgiving for lower time pilots. That is a very different thing and I wonder if you tell lower time canopy pilots to jump x-brace canopies because 'sloppy response... is never in anyones favor.'

you and robi seem not to understand his English or you twist his words on purpose like politicians. We all trys to learn here, not get in word fights, yes?

For the record, I have a Havok and no Squirrel but Matt say many wise things until someone piss him off, then he says not so wise things too!

Which is still 100% factually incorrect. Regardless of interpetation or 5 languages Robert or myself could read that in. It's simply not ignoring bad aerodynamics, and what the entire aviation, canopy and flight related industry is doing. A completely inverted leading edge, randomly and asymetricly adding drag can never be a positive contribution. Regardless of brand or make. Regardless of experience level.
It can lead to unexpected turns or movement in the worst cases even.

Low time canopy pilots don't tend to jump crossbraced canopies due to them not flying sub 90 sq/ft. But for sure fly much more rigid and responsive student canopies with harder profile and leading edge compared to several years back. And flying and landing those a lot better in comparison as well.

 

'Low time canopy pilots don't tend to jump crossbraced canopies due to them not flying sub 90 sq/ft.'

And who is '100% factually incorrect' now (see attach)?

what is that rule? First step to get out of hole is quit digging deeper, yes?

Im kind of missing any mention of squirrel or poorly made suits?
I was under the (perhaps strange) impression it was aerodynamics talk, which applies to every brand. PF had a more loose leading edge in the past vs now. Tony did. Intrudair did. Squirrel did. That new line also features the same tight leading edge improvements, which is why those same words are even more puzzling (and entertaining). The entire industry develops the same direction. Not one brand was singled out in what was written.

I do see a comicly ill tempered rep trying to turn it into something brand related. But popcorn vallue aside, it's not adding much to the initial question and (non branded) discussion.

 

Jarno, I think what Matt and Scotty are referring to is simply that a more flexible leading edge allows the pilot to manually induce some degree of washout by slightly twisting his arms, which at high angles of attack can help increase stability, and thus prevent radical back deflection. I'm guessing that's why Suirrel still offers the Aura 2 in an all glideskin version (or maybe I'm the only one who reads the fine print).

I don't think anybody is denying that a more rigid airfoil is more 'efficient' or 'faster'.

Correct. I was refering to an issue with a loose fit on the sleeve or entire suit. It was never a complaint about design. At PF we have also modified clients suits for this in the past. Baggy fit. Be it measurement or 2nd hand purchase related. And I know other brand users also returning suits due to ill fit for whatever reason. Its a very valid thing to check. Not cause for starting a war.

Try reading the same thing again, without the anger, and you'll see its normal sane advice on what to check. Things that can be 'a' cause of instability issues.

Remember something - we are all men who wear plastic dresses.

Are you trying to add basejumper.com & WS manufacturer litigation to your CV???

Yeah right Joe! I was just trying to translate Squirrelese to Dutch and Croatian. But I don't think anyone read my post.

Just copyed it from the F-List. I think its relevant to the topic:

Shaun was nearing the end of a three-month BASE tour in Europe. He was an experienced wingsuit BASE jumper flying Line 2 at Brevent, with several jumps from this exit the previous season, flying the same line and others.

This year, he was flying a new suit known to have flight characteristics that differ from his previous suit. One of the notable differences, when comparing the two suits, is how a pilot would fly a very steep line, such as those found at Brevent.
Shaun was hyper-current this season, on his current suit; however, it was said that he did not have as much experience flying this particular suit at the highly aggressive angles required to fly the Brevent lines.
While turning left above line 2, he began a hard dive to get down to the terrain. Shaun stopped his dive around 3-4 meters above the line, just before a slight right turn, where it appeared he exposed too much of the top surface of his wing to the relative wind, causing a downward force on his flying.
To counter this, Shaun made an abrupt change in his angle of attack, which resulted in a high-speed stall, where he lost stability and tumbled to impact.

RIP

Exposing the top surface to the relative wind is.... abrupt.., so train it in skydiving environment to be able to anticipate it and react in time but not overreact..

What should he have done different? Would just arching out a bit corrected his problem? That seems to work for me when I go too steep on WS skydives; lift head and push pelvis down just enough to move the relative wind back to the bottom of the wing. Is this good technique or is there better way?

BTW thanks again to everyone on this thread. I continue to learn so much, even from the fighting. As they say in AI, 'Intelligence emerges from the interaction of conflicting elements.'



edited to change 'wind' to 'wing'!

I think the biggest take away from that post is this: take your time and don't rush it.
Even if you are hyper current on your suit and have just completed three months of base jumping, aggressive terrain flying skills is something you should develop over years, not months...

 

Soft leading edge. And as much as Matt wants to discuss this away, it's still true.

Just FYI, that's a c-race that treehouse is flying in that part of the video. And if you fly with flat arms and an angle that can create more force over the top of the wing than the bottom like discussed previously in any wingsuit. Since that video is of the base race, I'd imagine he's trying to fly right at that speed/instability point.

Oh and for for "hard leading edge" crowd, if he had the performance foams that's probably the hardest and most shaped leading edge on any wingsuit.

 

From an aerodynamics point of view, there are a couple factors to consider:

At what angle of attack is this actually happening? Is it really at AoA = 0 or is it just at steeper angles of attack than usual?

Is the suit aerodynamically stable in the whole range of flight modes that you might fly in? For example, on an airplane, the horizontal tail stabilizer serves this purpose: as the AoA decreases (plane dives more) the down force increases on the stabilizer, which tends to push the nose back up. This feedback loop makes a plane stable along the pitch axis. Without this feedback loop, going into a dive might have a tendency to dive even further and be very hard to control. I don't know how this translates exactly to wingsuit design, but it is conceivable that on some suits, at some angles of attack, there might be inherent instability which could lead to an out of control dive or oscillation.

It is possible to learn to fly an aircraft in an unstable configuration. Freeflying is basically an exercise in flying in an unstable configuration, maybe something to be learned from that. Though I'd still prefer a suit that is inherently stable at steep angles of attack, rather than being forced to compensate.

I think if the top surface deflection is assymetric it would cause one arm wing to fold under?
I guess being at super high speed right at the point where top surface deflection is about to happen - then becoming very slightly unstable or changing body position to one side or the other just very subtly, could cause the flip?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOW35gXhWic

It's possible

 

Equally shooting from the hip here, but isn't the whole idea behind a wing that generates lift based on the idea that a low pressure area is created on the top of the wing surface?

As for the theory:

"Lift occurs when a moving flow of gas is turned by a solid object. The flow is turned in one direction, and the lift is generated in the opposite direction, according to Newton's Third Law of action and reaction."

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/.../airplane/lift1.html

Pressure decreases on top of the wing, but that is not what produces the lift. See:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/...airplane/wrong3.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/...airplane/wrong1.html

Another popular (and wrong) explanation for lift:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/...airplane/wrong2.html

Lift theory gets much more complex once you consider 3D objects. The equations get so complex they cannot be accurately simulated on a computer (although it can be approximated). This is why wind tunnels are still used when designing new aircraft. Modeling and simulating lift on wingsuits is even more complex than aircraft. The wings are not rigid, and pilots are able to change the shape of the wings.

Wingsuits also have much shorter wings than airplanes in general. So, the 3D effects become more pronounced. Downwash reduces lift near the wingtips:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/...rplane/downwash.html

As a result, it becomes very difficult to translate wingsuit flying into a nice set of equations that can be simulated on a computer.

When the wingsuiter is trying to race, his goal is to minimize the drag. As drag is reduced, lift can correspondingly be reduced to maintain the same angle of flight. The wingsuiter will fly the same angle faster as a result.

However, this kind of flying much more difficult. Why? The wingsuit generates less lift in this configuration. The steeper the angle, the lower the drag - and correspondingly the faster the flight - the less lift is needed to maintain the angle. Small mistakes by the pilot can now lead to significant consequences.

In the video, lift is lost on one of the wings, and the wing gets pushed down. The other wing still generates some lift, and as a result, the wingsuiter is flipped around pretty violently. If both wings lose lift simultaneously, the wingsuiter will dive as the air starts to flow over both wings. How fast can he recover from either situation? This phenomenon might be behind a number of no pull accidents.

The leading edge obviously plays a role, but it is not the only factor that contributes to flying. The shape and rigidity of the whole wing contributes to lift. Intuitively, one would expect that more rigid wingsuits would be better suited for flying fast. A wing that is not rigid can exacerbate movements and lead to unstability. However, a rigid wing will not cause an inexperienced pilot to fly better. Thinking of lift simply as pushing the air "down" with your wings does not explain all effects of lift. The upper part of the wing also contributes to lift (see again https://www.grc.nasa.gov/...airplane/wrong2.html).

You also cannot look at wingsuits in isolation. It is difficult to fly any wingsuit at steep angles. Flying skills are the key factor. If the pilot is not able to fly his wingsuit fast and at steep angles in the skydiving environment, he is a fool for trying to do so in BASE. I think most people have no business flying "race" suits at steep angles, period. Even hawks collapse their wings when diving steep...

Nice post , good info

But proportionately speaking wouldn't you consider our full sized wings already collapsed ?

Thanks for that.
For me, that was one of the best technical posts I ever read in a forum like this.

You sound too smart for these forums.

When a hawk collapses its wings, it forms a pretty stable flying platform. It is much easier for you, the wingsuiter, to lose lift than for the hawk to lose lift when diving with the wings collapsed. A bird can instantly add lift by either spreading its wings or flapping them. A hawk can literally dive down, stop almost immediately, grab the prey, then carry it away.

You can also add lift in a wingsuit, as long as you are within the expected flight envelope. Should you tumble, however, you are out of luck. You do not have a way to add lift instantly when you screw up. Therefore, I think flying wingsuits is more like flying a glider than being a bird. So, it is imperative to stay within the flight envelope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_envelope

When you look at aircraft, there are airframes that fly stable, such as most small planes, gliders and passenger jets. These tend to fly pretty stable with no pilot input if they are trimmed correctly. They "want" to return to level flight on their own. However, they are not well suited for acrobatics.

Then you have acrobatic planes and at the end of the spectrum, fighter jets. Modern fighter jets are aerodynamically unstable. This means that they turn faster, and the pilot does not have to "fight" the flying characteristics of the plane. More on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...lity_and_fly-by-wire

Modern fighter jets are fly-by-wire. The pilot gives the input, and a bunch of computers calculate how to manipulate all the flying surfaces based on a number of sensors to get the desired flying. Even when a fighter jet flies in a straight line, the flying surfaces are constantly in motion, adjusting smoothly several times within a second. That level of control is what enables them to fly so impressively and stable under all conditions. If the flight computers were shut down, the fighter jet would literally fall out of the sky in an unstable spin.

Wingsuits have an airframe that is inherently unstable and not even rigid. That makes them challenging to fly. Wingsuit flight dynamics are extremely complex and still not well understood even on a theoretical level. Wingsuits are "stable" when flown within the expected flight envelope, i.e. like a Cessna. The human brain seems to be well suited for that.

However, flying wingsuits like fighter jets, at steep angles, close to the ground, doing acrobatics, is a different game. If you look at it objectively, it is driven by ego. People convince themselves that they "got this". Aggressive wingsuit flying is like trying to fly an unstable fighter jet with primitive flight controls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ighter#Safety_record

You fly more like the "Widowmaker" than the F-16. There is no such thing as a "stable" wingsuit when flying near the edge of the flight envelope. To have that, you would need the same level of sophistication as a fly-by-wire jet, with sensors and computers reacting to the changing conditions and compensating for your mistakes by adjusting the wing surface continuously.

Your current flight controls - your senses, brain and muscles - are not well suited for precise, aggressive flying. You can't even tell your speed! You can only estimate it based on your vision, the pressure on your arms, the feeling of acceleration and the sound of the wind. On top of that, even seemingly mild weather conditions can interfere with your flight. That is the key limitation, not the wingsuit "airframe".

It is very easy to stumble outside the intended flight envelope of a wingsuit when you fly near the edge. Smart pilots find those limits in the skydiving environment, as much as that is possible. You are an aerodynamically unstable glider with complex flight dynamics, primitive flight controls, and slow limbs. You literally fly an experimental aircraft with very significant limitations. Do not let your ego and your race wingsuit convince you otherwise.

First of all, fantastic post! We need more of this kind of discussion in our community.


I think we agree on the premises, but not about the conclusion here.

You said yourself -- wingsuits are relatively stable in some configurations, but not at steep AoA's outside of their flight envelope. Humans are not well-suited to flying unstable aircraft, and that will never change. So the ONLY hope we have of surviving this game is to design a suit that is inherently stable at steep angles of attack, so that we are not constantly compensating for the suit's instability.

Specifically, if modern terrain flying requires the pilot to fly so steep that they are outside of the flight envelope, then we need to expand that flight envelope, by designing better wingsuits!

So just start flying much less steep terrain!

Great posts stykr.

To everyone:
Are wingsuit designers looking at how aircraft fly, how birds fly or maybe both for inspiration and technical innovations?

How do new ideas manifest and take form? Are designers just doing a lot of minor alterations to see how things fly differently or are they looking elsewhere for input?

Wingsuits are just a piece of plastic stretched between your limbs. There is only so much you can do to turn that into an aerodynamic shape. Hang gliders, paragliders, and even your trusty canopy are much more stable in comparison. But you also give up some of the maneuverability and fun for that stability.

All the control in the wingsuit is through your body. So, can you really blame the wingsuit because it cannot fly the way you want it to? Maybe you need to adjust your expectations. If you don't like the way it handles, get another one.

Also, if you were to build a more stable wingsuit, BASE jumpers would just use it to fly harder lines. It does not matter that wingsuits are getting better and more stable if people keep flying them at the edge of the flight envelope...

Wait just a minute here... for a second this thread was perfectly summing up everything that is wrong with this place (and also the human race), then stykr came along and fucked it all up. Look at how it went:

Guy gets on here with what is a legitimate question. Something that everyone can learn from, if we can just get the right answer from someone who knows it!

Mccordia comes at us with zero info and what is actually a post that is just meant to disparage other brands even though some of the leading edges he sells also look like battered cellulite.

Pgpilot just annihilates him, what a dick, but what did mccordia expect from his useless and totally incorrect post? Anyway pgpilot basically answered everything in a way normal people can understand

Then mccordias daddy comes to rescue him and do damage control but he's short on English skills and I guess he skimmed the Wikipedia "angle of attack" page too fast and got things backwards...

Then there is the mandatory, gotta have it – literally, in every single post on this entire site since like 2013 – post from fledgling that means nothing, contributes nothing, and tells us nothing; other than that it was probably written by a venal child with stinky chip on his shoulder… literally the only poster that is more useless is random anonymous Swiss guy!

Then mccordia backpedals when he realizes for one second that no one takes him seriously due to his shittalking track record, which is something he will forget again in five minutes.

Then for a second it seems like everyone gets it. Except obviously not bludow. He totally does not get it. He’s like, it’s the suit right? Because watch this video. Which is hilariously wrong for so many reasons that everyone should know but people are too fucking lazy to believe. Firstly, that video is of a pilot in a suit with literally the hardest, thickest, sharpest leading edge ever made. The Crace. Secondly, who is flying it? Canadian guy who never skydives, goes to a BASE race with new suit and for the first time takes his suit on a steep long dive trying to max it out and win and be super rad and famous? Yep. Nice one… good idea. Must be the suits fault.

No one wants to believe that they really have to train to be good and get skill. Everyone wants to buy something that will make them better. Everyone wants to blame everything else when they fuck up – it’s the gear, it’s the conditions, it's someone else's fault. Right. Try practicing a little and at least making an effort to understand what it is you are doing. Even the people teaching other people to flying wingsuits do not understand basic concepts like angle of attack and center of pressure. Btw this is a good description of alpha: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/...dynamics/q0165.shtml

Anyway, thanks to Stykr for totally jacking up the dorkzone, please leave so that we can go back to making each other stupider.

Cool story bro!

I think you're using the word "literally" incorrectly and too often. You only really need to use this word when something you say can be mistaken for something figuratively.

Inconceivable

I do think this word means what you think it means.

I never read this post before, that was very entertaining and also a lot of things to learn.

Special mention to the floppy leading edge being easier to fly, and not any new model in the last years.

There is a lot of interesting discussions locked in the annals of this website. Around 2010 should provide interesting content when “flying mattress suits are dangerous” was a big talking point. I’m assuming some of your recent prototype flights led you to looking for a thread like this. Stay safe!

Yes, my last prototype might have the same kind of problem, or not, but any technical information is always good to learn.

Spoken in your best voice of Monty Python?

Interesting thread.