#1 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio
#2 Posted by Agent9149 (2894 posts) - - Show Bio

Can't wait for someone to invent a way to do that and land without a parachute.

#3 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@Agent9149 said:

Can't wait for someone to invent a way to do that and land without a parachute.

At one point there near the ground, he looks like he gets a lot of horizontal speed compared to vertical... I think he could land without a chute. He'd need a long stretch of snow or ice or something like that. If he can zero-out his vertical speed right before hitting it, he might be able to make contact without killing himself, and then it's just a matter of slowing down. Basically, same thing an airplane or ski jumper does.

#4 Edited by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@Agent9149 said:

Can't wait for someone to invent a way to do that and land without a parachute.

At one point there near the ground, he looks like he gets a lot of horizontal speed compared to vertical... I think he could land without a chute. He'd need a long stretch of snow or ice or something like that. If he can zero-out his vertical speed right before hitting it, he might be able to make contact without killing himself, and then it's just a matter of slowing down. Basically, same thing an airplane or ski jumper does.

I could offer you a very long, detailed post as to why that's not likely to happen, if you're interested in reading it.

EDIT: Also, this looks like fairly regular base jumping stuff, the only difference is he's doing it over beautiful, scenic terrain. It's pretty cool, but it's not really new.

#5 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

I could offer you a very long, detailed post as to why that's not likely to happen, if you're interested in reading it.

Ok, go ahead.

#6 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

I could offer you a very long, detailed post as to why that's not likely to happen, if you're interested in reading it.

Ok, go ahead.

*COPY-PASTE, GO*

Sorry bra, but that's really... not going to happen. If he had that much speed and had so much surface area in his suit that he managed to have completely 0 vertical speed (not even really sure if that's possible in and of itself, it might be, it might not be (I personally don't think it would be, without a means of propulsion, but I don't know for sure)), he'd be going insanely fast. If he landed on a surface then, first off, he wouldn't land on it unless it was an inclined plane, because if he has zero vertical drop, then he'd hover above the surface. There is going to be vertical drop, and when he makes contact, even a moment before, he's going to drop with the full force of gravity, because he's no longer gliding on air, relying on air friction to keep him afloat. He'd smack into the ground so fast and so hard it'd be like if a motorcycle going 200 MPH were to just stop dead in it's tracks, and launch the driver onto the pavement, even if the pavement were ice.

Ice in itself presents new problems, in that friction is greatly reduced, and he'd either keep on sliding for several seconds and probably rip his suit/body apart from the heat and force and roughness of the impact, or he'd slide into a solid object, probably breaking things in his body.

Snow would be even worse because he'd flop around in it and it'd be like falling in a liquid slightly less dense than water, since there's a ton of air inbetween layers of snow; he'd go through hell on the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w I believe he broke both his legs on this jump, as well. If he had such incredible speed that he was practically floating on air completely, and then had an accident like this, he'd probably have way more injuries, might even rip his legs off, if the same impact as in the video were made.

#7 Posted by danhimself (22443 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@Agent9149 said:

Can't wait for someone to invent a way to do that and land without a parachute.

At one point there near the ground, he looks like he gets a lot of horizontal speed compared to vertical... I think he could land without a chute. He'd need a long stretch of snow or ice or something like that. If he can zero-out his vertical speed right before hitting it, he might be able to make contact without killing himself, and then it's just a matter of slowing down. Basically, same thing an airplane or ski jumper does.

you didn't see the video where he nearly killed himself did you?

#8 Posted by Referee (7215 posts) - - Show Bio

Go Big or Go Home!

No Guts No Glory!

No brain No pain?

#9 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@Referee said:

Go Big or Go Home!

No Guts No Glory!

No brain No pain?

LOL

#10 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

*COPY-PASTE, GO*

Sorry bra, but that's really... not going to happen. If he had that much speed and had so much surface area in his suit that he managed to have completely 0 vertical speed (not even really sure if that's possible in and of itself, it might be, it might not be (I personally don't think it would be, without a means of propulsion, but I don't know for sure)), he'd be going insanely fast. If he landed on a surface then, first off, he wouldn't land on it unless it was an inclined plane, because if he has zero vertical drop, then he'd hover above the surface. There is going to be vertical drop, and when he makes contact, even a moment before, he's going to drop with the full force of gravity, because he's no longer gliding on air, relying on air friction to keep him afloat. He'd smack into the ground so fast and so hard it'd be like if a motorcycle going 200 MPH were to just stop dead in it's tracks, and launch the driver onto the pavement, even if the pavement were ice.

Ice in itself presents new problems, in that friction is greatly reduced, and he'd either keep on sliding for several seconds and probably rip his suit/body apart from the heat and force and roughness of the impact, or he'd slide into a solid object, probably breaking things in his body.

Snow would be even worse because he'd flop around in it and it'd be like falling in a liquid slightly less dense than water, since there's a ton of air inbetween layers of snow; he'd go through hell on the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w I believe he broke both his legs on this jump, as well. If he had such incredible speed that he was practically floating on air completely, and then had an accident like this, he'd probably have way more injuries, might even rip his legs off, if the same impact as in the video were made.

Did you write this or just copy from someone else?

I agree it's unlikely to happen soon since it would present significant problems, but "unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

Anyway, in the part I bolded, you're either not explaining something correctly or you're confused about the physics of what you're describing.

The thing is that while this would be very difficult to accomplish, in theory it's still similar to ski jumpers landing. They also have great speed when they land, special equipment, and special geometry of the landing area. Given all these things, I think it's possible for a skydiver to land without a chute as well. Not easy, but possible.

@danhimself said:

you didn't see the video where he nearly killed himself did you?

I've only seen this video. I'll look for others later when I have time.

#11 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

*COPY-PASTE, GO*

Sorry bra, but that's really... not going to happen. If he had that much speed and had so much surface area in his suit that he managed to have completely 0 vertical speed (not even really sure if that's possible in and of itself, it might be, it might not be (I personally don't think it would be, without a means of propulsion, but I don't know for sure)), he'd be going insanely fast. If he landed on a surface then, first off, he wouldn't land on it unless it was an inclined plane, because if he has zero vertical drop, then he'd hover above the surface. There is going to be vertical drop, and when he makes contact, even a moment before, he's going to drop with the full force of gravity, because he's no longer gliding on air, relying on air friction to keep him afloat. He'd smack into the ground so fast and so hard it'd be like if a motorcycle going 200 MPH were to just stop dead in it's tracks, and launch the driver onto the pavement, even if the pavement were ice.

Ice in itself presents new problems, in that friction is greatly reduced, and he'd either keep on sliding for several seconds and probably rip his suit/body apart from the heat and force and roughness of the impact, or he'd slide into a solid object, probably breaking things in his body.

Snow would be even worse because he'd flop around in it and it'd be like falling in a liquid slightly less dense than water, since there's a ton of air inbetween layers of snow; he'd go through hell on the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w I believe he broke both his legs on this jump, as well. If he had such incredible speed that he was practically floating on air completely, and then had an accident like this, he'd probably have way more injuries, might even rip his legs off, if the same impact as in the video were made.

Did you write this or just copy from someone else?

I agree it's unlikely to happen soon since it would present significant problems, but "unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

Anyway, in the part I bolded, you're either not explaining something correctly or you're confused about the physics of what you're describing.

The thing is that while this would be very difficult to accomplish, in theory it's still similar to ski jumpers landing. They also have great speed when they land, special equipment, and special geometry of the landing area. Given all these things, I think it's possible for a skydiver to land without a chute as well. Not easy, but possible.

@danhimself said:

you didn't see the video where he nearly killed himself did you?

I've only seen this video. I'll look for others later when I have time.

I wrote it myself. I have rudimentary college-level physics knowledge. Does that surprise you..?

I think I know what you got confused on, in my post.

To achieve the level of force to completely negate gravity's force on him, he has to be going fast, with a lot of surface area, across the air, to have so much air resistance pushing against him that gravity won't pull him down. He'd have tremendous velocity in the horizontal plane, to achieve a net downward force of 0. It's not impossible (I think in my previous post I said it was; I was wrong though!), but it is difficult and dangerous.

If he did manage to achieve that velocity, it wouldn't be just before he touches ground. If he touches the ground, he is either:

Landing upwards on a hill of some sort

Hitting an object mid-flight

Falling

Since we've established that to do this landing, he'd have to have 0 downward velocity, he has to be landing upwards on a hill or hitting something like a building, to stop. We'll assume he's landing on a hill, since hitting a building (or another sufficiently massive object to stop his flight) would be suicide.

We'll also be very kind and assume only a 3 degree inclination of the hill, and we'll say it's made of relatively smooth ice.

This is where things get trippy.

That's how we measure the force due to air resistance, or drag, using F subscript D to represent this force. Force is measured in Newtons which are kg*m/s^2, or kilogram meters per second squared.

p represents the density of the fluid (in this case, homogenous air) (approximately 1.225 kg/m^3

v is the velocity of the object (in this case, the base jumper) (this is also the variable we are attempting to find, to find out just how fast he's moving)

C_d (that is, C subscript d) is the drag coefficient, which is a unitless number to represent it's aerodynamic behavior in the fluid in question. Since, according to wikipedia, a streamlined body has a drag coefficient of .04, a long cylinder has a drag coefficient of .82, and most cars have drag coefficients of .25 to .45, we will use these four values in four different equations to find out how fast he has to go to achieve a consistent vertical velocity of exactly 0, given that he uses 4 drastically differently designed suits that correspond to real-world applicable values.

A is the area of the object involved, in this case the base jumper (we'll use the Du Bois formula to find this, assuming a mildly beefy guy of 90 kg and 6 feet (or 1.83 meters) to put his surface area at 2.12 square meters) and additionally the base jumper's wingsuit.

Now, I have no idea the area a wing suit offers to someone. It increases surface area dramatically to increase air resistance, but I have no idea by how much. We'll say 40 square feet. I just picked a value out of the air though, based on how they look. I can't even find info like this on the internet. Google has failed me.

As well, we find the necessary drag required to keep him completely afloat in the air, by finding the force of gravity acted on him. So:

9.8m/s^2 (acceleration due to gravity) * his mass = the force exerted, which is also the drag needed to keep him from being pulled by gravity, achieving, essentially, a vertical velocity of 0. Since we are assuming he is 90 kg, he has 882 Newtons of force acting on him, meaning drag is also 882 Newtons of force in this equation.

Now let's follow this equation out. We will ignore our units since, by definition of this equation, it is already balanced. I will keep velocity bolded, so we can keep track of it:

882 = (1/2)(1.225)(v^2)(.04)(2.12)

Interesting thing here is that velocity will end up as negative, or so it might seem. I'll show why it doesn't turn out to be negative, right now, by simplifying and solving this equation for velocity:

882 = (0.117)(v^2)

Divide both sides by 0.0519:

17,000 = v^2

v = 130 m/s (approximately)

That's over 468 kilometers per hour. More than a third the speed of sound. Such speeds have been reached, and greatly surpassed! But, only by orbital drops, and only by Felix Baumgartner, to my knowledge, who did such a drop at what... 24 miles above the Earth's surface? Something like that. Higher than any mountain, anyway.

Now let's take this and figure out the force of impact if he were to collide with a 3 degree inclined plane, at this speed, with no vertical drop involved. He is, for all intents and purposes, a projectile that is not moving in the y-dimension (up and down).

A relatively quick and dirty equation finds the force immediately imparted on his body as soon as contact is made.

We will use F_n (F subscript n) to denote the normal force, the force imparted on him from the hill he is making contact with. We will assume an inelastic collision, and the hill will also not move as a result of the force, meaning he's basically hitting a completely immobile inelastic hunk of rock. This is admittedly a worst-case scenario. Actually, worst case scenario is probably if he hits a big sharp rock, or lands on a steeper hill, but as far as planned landings go, this is probably a pretty bad one in terms of "things to land on".

F_n = mass(90 kg) * acceleration(In this case, deceleration, since he is slowing down by hitting the hill; 130 m/s^2 * sine(3 degrees))

F_n = 11,700 Newtons * sine(3 degrees)

F_n = 612 Newtons of force applied directly to his face.

It's like if someone threw a 100 kg boulder right at his face. Really fast. That impact, is like someone throwing a 100 kg boulder at his face that's going more than 6 meters per second through the air. It's like Arnold Schwarzanegger throwing that boulder. AT YOUR FACE.

We'll just ignore the fact that he's going to continue being hit by the normal force for several seconds before stopping because the hill is very shallow, and he's going to skid/flop around. We'll ignore that and just focus on BEING HIT IN THE FACE WITH AN AUSTRIAN POWERHOUSE BOULDER THROW.

This landing will likely result in massive blunt trauma to the head, possibly a broken neck, and since he's going to either skid or bounce and flop around on the ground continuously until he's stopped, many other broken bones and/or his face will be turned into goo, if his helmet's visor doesn't hold up.

Let's do these same calculations.. But using a different coefficient of drag. Let's use .82, for a cylinder.

882 = (1/2)(1.225)(v^2)(.82)(2.12)

v = 28.8 m/s (approximately)

If he's built more like a cylinder, his speed is greatly reduced to achieve the same effect. He could feasibly reach this speed if he's built more cylindrical.

The force he feels as a result of the impact with the hill, then, is...

F_n = 90kg * 28.8m/s^2 * sine(3 degrees)

F_n = 136 Newtons (approx.)

That is much better! Still not great, though. Instead of being hit with a 100 kg boulder, you're now roughly being hit by a 20 kg door. In the face. At almost 7 meters per second, or about15 MPH. That's going to f***ing hurt, or kill you.

I don't even need to do the other calculations. They'll be between the two calculations I've already made, and these two don't turn out so good anyway.

I hope you've enjoyed your physics lesson for the day.

I bolded most of the parts that are important, for a quick read-through if you (the reader, not anyone in particular) are feeling lazy. This took me a while to do because I've never, ever researched wingsuit jumping before. Hope everyone appreciates the time I put into this. More importantly, please point out any errors I made!

#12 Posted by danhimself (22443 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton:

#13 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

...

Ok, you are somewhat confused here. I'm only going to deal with the first half, dont really have time to go through it all. But, in regards to the first part:

If he were to have 0 vertical speed, it'd mean his weight would be balanced by the lift, not by the drag. Weight = force down. Lift = force up. Drag = force backwards. You cant plug his weight into the equation for the drag coefficient, it doenst mean anything. In aircraft, drag balances thrust.

Also, the area in the equation is the reference area... which depends on what you're talking about and how the drag coefficient was calculated to begin with. If we say the person in the wing suit is an airfoil (a streamlined body) then the drag coefficient is normally the top-down view area. You're using the body surface area. So this too is not correct.

So that velocity you calculated (130 m/s) doesnt represent anything. You cant plug in completely unrelated quantities into an equation and expect a valid answer.

.

In any case, how could he land without killing himself? Like I already said, this is similar to ski jumping. In ski jumping they also achieve high speeds, including both downward and forward speeds. Ski jumpers leave the takeoff ramp at 60mph or higher. By the time they land they're probably doing faster. And, they land without any injury whatsoever.

They survive because 1) they have a specially designed ramp to land on and 2) they have equipment like the skis that they land on. The wing-suit guy will be going faster, but he can also have a much longer ramp. He can also have any equipment he needs, including skis to land on.

@minigunman123 said:

This landing will likely result in massive blunt trauma to the head, possibly a broken neck, and since he's going to either skid or bounce and flop around on the ground continuously until he's stopped, many other broken bones and/or his face will be turned into goo, if his helmet's visor doesn't hold up.

I never said he has to land flat on his chest head first, this is your assumption. All I said was "without a chute". He could very well be wearing the wing suit and skis, and other equipment if necessary. Also the landing ramp can have any length, geometry, and surface composition that's possible and optimal for the landing.

#14 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

...

Ok, you are somewhat confused here. I'm only going to deal with the first half, dont really have time to go through it all. But, in regards to the first part:

If he were to have 0 vertical speed, it'd mean his weight would be balanced by the lift, not by the drag. Weight = force down. Lift = force up. Drag = force backwards. You cant plug his weight into the equation for the drag coefficient, it doenst mean anything. In aircraft, drag balances thrust.

Also, the area in the equation is the reference area... which depends on what you're talking about and how the drag coefficient was calculated to begin with. If we say the person in the wing suit is an airfoil (a streamlined body) then the drag coefficient is normally the top-down view area. You're using the body surface area. So this too is not correct.

So that velocity you calculated (130 m/s) doesnt represent anything. You cant plug in completely unrelated quantities into an equation and expect a valid answer.

.

In any case, how could he land without killing himself? Like I already said, this is similar to ski jumping. In ski jumping they also achieve high speeds, including both downward and forward speeds. Ski jumpers leave the takeoff ramp at 60mph or higher. By the time they land they're probably doing faster. And, they land without any injury whatsoever.

They survive because 1) they have a specially designed ramp to land on and 2) they have equipment like the skis that they land on. The wing-suit guy will be going faster, but he can also have a much longer ramp. He can also have any equipment he needs, including skis to land on.

@minigunman123 said:

This landing will likely result in massive blunt trauma to the head, possibly a broken neck, and since he's going to either skid or bounce and flop around on the ground continuously until he's stopped, many other broken bones and/or his face will be turned into goo, if his helmet's visor doesn't hold up.

I never said he has to land flat on his chest head first, this is your assumption. All I said was "without a chute". He could very well be wearing the wing suit and skis, and other equipment if necessary. Also the landing ramp can have any length, geometry, and surface composition that's possible and optimal for the landing.

It seems, to me anyway, you're a bit confused here, actually; I'm about to head off to bed, but I'll explain it in the morning, I actually didn't even mean to log on at his hour, I just needed to edit something on my comp and comic vine was like "click meeee! Click meee!"... Damn you, Comic Vine Ghosts...

Anyway, talk to you in the morning!

#15 Edited by lykopis (10753 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123: @WillPayton:

(please note --- even with all this in play it is still incredibly, incredibly difficult, but possible. And expensive. Or maybe not...lykopis - )

How to Land in a Wingsuit, Sans Parachute

How It Works: The Ultimate Face Plant

Anyone can fly like a bird and land without a parachute--once. But Jeb Corliss has no desire to become a human pancake. "A wingsuit landing is only successful if you can do it 10 times out of 10 without being injured," Corliss says. "I'm talking no broken toes, no broken anything." Corliss is guarded about his plan--he doesn't want rivals to steal his ideas--but he has let some details slip. Here's an educated guess at how he might pull off the stunt.

1. Ramp Up: A construction team builds Corliss's $3 million, 2000-foot-long landing ramp, which is temporarily attached to the side of a still-to-be-determined Las Vegas structure. The ramp may be made of tensile fabric like the roof of the Denver International Airport; cables anchor the ramp and keep its surface taut.

2. Take Flight: Corliss jumps from a helicopter several thousand feet over the Las Vegas Strip. His customized wingsuit has lightweight, ripstop nylon panels from the undersides of his arms to his torso and between his legs. Air inlets on the wing's leading edge allow it to inflate and stay rigidly pressurized for flight. Glide ratios of 3 feet forward for every 1 foot down are possible, but Corliss flies 1 to 1, which enables him to pull up and change his angle of approach.

3. Stay on Target: Hitting the ramp wrong would be like crashing a car into a barrier without a seatbelt or airbags. Corliss aims for a tiny approach window that's about 20 feet by 20 feet at the top of the landing strip, so flight path accuracy is critical. His "trajectory control system" could include using tethered weather balloons at progressively lower altitudes as visual aids, allowing him to precisely tweak direction and angle.

4. Bail Out: If Corliss's approach is at all off, he veers away from the line of balloons and deploys his chute. Six hundred feet above the ground is scarily low for the average sky diver to pull the ripcord, but no problem for an experienced BASE jumper like Corliss, who has deployed his chute at a third of that height.

5. Or Land Lightly: Corliss aims to land like an Olympic ski jumper, matching the angle of the slope as closely as possible. But while ski jumpers fly at about 60 mph, Corliss is doing 100 mph, and he'll land on his rib cage, not his legs. The ramp's fabric can absorb some of the impact and friction, but it can't be too forgiving or Corliss will bounce off. To survive unharmed, Corliss touches down on the 45-degree landing ramp with a flight angle no steeper than about 50 degrees.

6. Put on the Brakes: He isn't home free yet. Lacking wheeled landing gear, Corliss slides down the ramp, which may have a lubricated surface to facilitate glide. One expert recommended a suit with ceramic tiles to dissipate friction-generated heat. Approaching the ground, the decline of the ramp eases off, as does Corliss's speed. At the bottom of the ramp he stands up and walks away

Source

(plus this is interesting as well - several educated guesses are taken as to what could possibly work. - lykopis)

High-Flying Adventures in a Wingsuit. Jeb Corliss has jumped from the world's tallest buildings. But that was just a warmup. Sometime soon, Corliss hopes to put on a wingsuit, launch from a helicopter, glide through the air and land—without a parachute.

*Jeb Corliss

Precision flying is the key to the Wingsuit Landing Project. Mont Hubbard, a professor of mechanical and aeronautical engineering at the University of California—Davis, confirms that if Corliss's flight angle matches that of the landing slope, and friction is kept to a minimum, the impact force on touchdown will be almost nil. If he is 6 degrees off—hitting the 45-degree ramp at 51 degrees—the force on his body would be the same as if he were dropped from 3 feet in the air onto flat ground. So far so good. But the math quickly starts to work against Corliss, and misalignments of 11, 16 and 23 degrees result in equivalent fall heights of roughly 13, 30 and 50 feet.

People have survived far worse, plummeting chuteless from planes in emergencies and living to tell the tale. In 2007 window washer Alcides Moreno plunged from the roof of a Manhattan skyscraper and lived. But Dr. Christopher Kepler notes in his grimly entrancing paper "Orthopaedic Injuries Associated With Fall From Floor Forty-Seven" that cases like the window washer's are very much the exception. Falls from even four or five stories (about 40 to 50 feet) are fatal half the time, and survival rates drop rapidly when you plunge from anything higher than that.

Considering the risk of injury upon landing—to say nothing about what would happen if Corliss went into a 100-mph tumble on the landing strip—the experts assessing Corliss's plans are skeptical. "Theoretically, if he got everything just right and his flight path was perfect and there was no wind, he could do it, but the probability is low," says Albert I. King, chairman of the biomedical engineering department at Wayne State University, which studies human survivability in car crashes. "I say, don't do it." Former Hollywood stuntman turned aerospace technologist Roy Haggard has consulted with Corliss on the landing ramp's design, and even he has concerns. Corliss plans to use a sequence of weather-type balloons to provide visual cues to the top of the landing ramp but Haggard questions whether the balloons would be stable enough to provide precision guidance. "That's like trying to shoot a sniper rifle using balloons for sights," he says.

To be fair, most of Corliss's BASE jumping exploits—double backflip through the center of the Eiffel Tower, anyone?—would never have been greenlit by the risk-assessment crowd. The real Achilles' heel of the Wingsuit Landing Project, arguably, is not safety but cost. Haggard says the landing ramp could be easily engineered and built; the problem is that it would cost at least $3 million, quite possibly a prohibitive amount to raise even from reality-television producers eager to broadcast the spectacle.

The most obvious alternative would be to simply build a landing strip on a suitably steep mountainside—or skip the strip altogether and land on snow. Corliss, however, says it would be difficult to ensure that the landing surface would be uniformly smooth as needed for safety; worse, he would have no option to bail out and deploy the chute if his approach was off. Only a ramp would give him complete control.

But other would-be record breakers have cooked up different methods that might enable them to land without a chute. A wingsuit manufacturer in South Africa is developing a design that would allow a chuteless pilot to land on his feet, no landing strip required. Jii-Wings' Integrated Glide And Landing System (IGALS) calls for a larger than normal wingsuit, capable of a 4:1 glide ratio that the pilot can drop below just before landing, a position that allows him to execute an aeronautical maneuver known as a flare, lifting upward and shedding speed dramatically just before reaching the ground. "I think for one to say one has landed a wingsuit without a parachute, it should be the design of the suit, and not the environment in which one lands, that enables the landing," designer Maria von Egidy says.

The IGALS approach, though, has not yet been tested with people jumping from planes. Even if it proves viable, Corliss sees it as a variation on something that has already been done, namely, landing in a hang glider. Being original (or "forcing evolution," as he describes it) is vital to Corliss. "What makes human beings so special is that we don't evolve through morphing our bodies, we evolve through our minds," Corliss says. "We create technologies that allow us to do things like breathe underwater, fly in the sky and land on the ground."

Source

(if you managed to make it this far --- here is someone who managed to do it, in a different and cheaper way in May of this year. - lykopis)

Behind the Death-Defying, Record-Setting Wingsuit Jump. Jeb Corliss, a BASE jumper, sought to become the first person to survive a parachute-less jump in a wingsuit from 2000 feet up. But while Corliss watched from California, Englishman Gary Connery pulled the feat just outside London along the river Thames.

*Gary Connery

Renowned BASE jumper Jeb Corliss should have been zipping himself into a wingsuit. He should have boarded a black helicopter, flown up to 2400 feet, and jumped out. He should have spread his arms and legs, turning the suit’s nylon panels into wings, and streaked through the skies like a missile. And most of all, he should have been the one to finally shatter limits of flight and human mortality as he became the first wingsuit pilot to jump from an aircraft and land without the help of a parachute. The feat has long been Corliss’s most cherished ambition and almost nobody else on earth possesses the requisite skill and audacity to pull it off. But Corliss was at home in southern California transfixed like any other spectator when an Internet video feed showed a 42-year-old British man named Gary Connery nabbing the coveted record by plunging into a landing pad of cardboard boxes.

The achievement wasn’t quite the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk or Chuck Yeager in his X-1. But a chute-less wingsuit landing has long a been a major goal of Corliss and a handful of the world’s other top wingsuit pilots—few of whom, apparently, had even heard of Connery until a couple of months ago. When Corliss first caught of wind of Connery’s plans, he suspected it was an April Fool’s joke. When he realized that this wasn’t the case, he thought that Connery "was absolutely insane. I genuinely believed that what he was going for was impossible," Corliss tells PM.

Corliss’s own vision for the wingsuit landing project had been to build a 2000-foot long ramp, attach it to the side of a Las Vegas hotel, and touch down from his flight like a ski jumper in the Olympics—only he’d be doing 100 mph and landing on his torso rather than on his legs. It was to be a multimillion-dollar spectacle backed by corporate sponsors with warehouses of cash. But the companies Corliss approached didn’t want to fork over the funds, especially for an endeavor that might end in human pancake. Connery’s wife, Vivienne, says that he met with similar resistance from would-be sponsors and realized that he’d have to devise a cheaper, down-and-dirty approach. He needed to hack the wingsuit landing.

The inspiration came from Connery’s day job. He’s a stunt man who wrecks cars and leaps from great heights in television shows and movies such as The Beach and the Bond flick Die Another Day. With this professional background, Connery brought fresh thinking to the challenge. "Jeb has more expertise in wingsuits than Gary," Vivienne Connery says, "but what Gary was able to lend to this project was a more overall generic knowledge of how people fall."

When Gary Connery’s cinematic stunt work requires him to plunge from the top of a building, he knows that his body accelerates to around 60 mph. To hit the ground without injuring or killing himself, he builds a surprisingly rudimentary landing pad—a big pile of empty cardboard boxes. A speed of 60 mph is also about how fast Connery flies in a wingsuit, and you can guess how his thinking progressed. "Gary said, "Let’s just put a bunch of cardboard boxes in a field, and I’ll fly into them,’" says Mark Sutton, the project manager and aerial videographer for the wingsuit landing.

So, instead of investing $3 million on a landing ramp in Vegas, Connery spent only £22,000 pounds ($35,000) to buy 18,500 cardboard boxes. On Wednesday he and his friends and family members set them up in a field by the River Thames about 40 miles west of London. There was a bottom layer of 2-by-2-by-2-foot boxes, a middle one of 3-by-3-by-3s, and a top layer of 4-by-3-by-3s. The finished landing strip measured 350 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 12 feet high—enormous, unless you’re squinting at it from more than a mile away in a helicopter.

If there was doubt in Connery’s mind before he leapt, it wasn’t about whether the boxes would sufficiently cushion his landing, it was whether he’d manage to land on the boxes at all. Connery and Sutton had been training for months, analyzing GPS tracks of Connery’s flights to determine the exact glide ratio—about 2.1 feet forward for every 1 foot down—he would need to maintain to hit the landing zone. In training flights on Tuesday, using parachutes to safely bail out at the very end, Connery and Sutton were stymied by headwinds. "We landed in the field several times, as in well short," Sutton says.

The conditions were suboptimal when Connery launched the actual record-setting flight. "There was a headwind . . . [and] I was being tossed around by the turbulence," Connery said but he managed to hit the boxes successfully and minutes later, totally uninjured, he was hugging his wife and treating a crush of television reporters to a shower of champagne. "Everybody doubted that Gary’s flight was possible, but as we now know, his confidence was perfectly placed," Sutton says.

Corliss, for his part, calls Connery’s flight "the greatest stunt ever performed," and says that he bears no ill will toward the man who stole his dream. "I go by the Samurai code—if you are vanquished by your enemy, you must give him respect," Corliss says. "There’s nothing I can say other than, ‘Congratulations, bro.’"

Source

AMAZING. O_O

(edited to add: this is all compliments of Popular Mechanics)

#16 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: Very interesting! Thanks for that :D Still, I was mostly just arguing against the idea of landing without a chute, while going so fast that you're literally gliding on the air, effectively negating gravity's effect on you; this is very cool stuff though. One of my favorite threads.

@WillPayton: Anyway, drag is actually a force in any direction. Let me explain this further; drag is the result of you moving through a fluid, and the fluid pushing back on you, because it has mass and doesn't like things moving through it (even though it's completely possible and visible in every day phenomena - my fingers are moving through a fluid, air, just to type!). It doesn't have a "direction" in the sense that it's always left, or right, it has a "direction" in the sense it always opposes the direction you're going. If you jump up, and then fall back down, you're affected by drag from the air because you're falling through a fluid, in this case, air. If you sink to the bottom of the ocean, you've got a maximum possible speed, because the water is dragging on you when you move through it. Water is much more dense than air though, so your max velocity would be much lower than in air.

You seem to have mixed up terms that work in descriptions, that are applied in various directions, but physically don't work. Lift is simply a word to describe a force applied to an object in the reverse direction of gravity; it's the same as the drag in this problem! That is because drag is the force of the air pushing back on the person falling through said air! These terms are physically/mathematically equal in this problem, since he has no forces other than air resistance and gravity acting on him.

As well, the area in the drag equation is actually the cross sectional area of the person or object in question, so I used it correctly. I have no idea what you're talking about, in that sense, but it's the area of the object falling through the fluid.

You're correct however, in that I assumed he'd be landing just like he flies; belly or face first. If he were to land on his legs instead, he'd have to rotate his body to be parallel with the surface he's landing on, or mostly parallel, and this is very unlikely to work well, because when he tries to rotate his body, his movement through the air would change rapidly, he'd start sinking like a stone and he'd have tremendous force pushing on his torso because the velocity he's moving horizontally through the air would have massive force go up against his body, which is now vertical, not horizontal, so he'd probably have trouble breathing, he'd have trouble keeping his balance and orientation, and he might not land on the ramp correctly (it's a very likely possibility, actually). As well, the ski's he's apparently wearing in your stunt, would completely change the aerodynamics of him moving through the air in the first place, possibly making it impossible for him to get that incredible velocity to skid along the air, and if he did manage to get that velocity, if they're not perfectly parallel to his body, they could very well break, and injure him.

He's also going much faster than any ski jumper is; he's going several times faster, in fact, if they only reach, say, 90 mph (since you said "60 mph or higher").

The other assumption I made was that he was going to be doing this in a naturally built area, like his other stunt you posted was, rather than a specially built obstacle course (or whatever). If he had the area built specifically for him, then... I really don't think it would matter that much, in the stunt you proposed. But it might make some difference.

#17 Edited by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton: Anyway, drag is actually a force in any direction. Let me explain this further; drag is the result of you moving through a fluid, and the fluid pushing back on you, because it has mass and doesn't like things moving through it (even though it's completely possible and visible in every day phenomena - my fingers are moving through a fluid, air, just to type!). It doesn't have a "direction" in the sense that it's always left, or right, it has a "direction" in the sense it always opposes the direction you're going. If you jump up, and then fall back down, you're affected by drag from the air because you're falling through a fluid, in this case, air. If you sink to the bottom of the ocean, you've got a maximum possible speed, because the water is dragging on you when you move through it. Water is much more dense than air though, so your max velocity would be much lower than in air.

You seem to have mixed up terms that work in descriptions, that are applied in various directions, but physically don't work. Lift is simply a word to describe a force applied to an object in the reverse direction of gravity; it's the same as the drag in this problem! That is because drag is the force of the air pushing back on the person falling through said air! These terms are physically/mathematically equal in this problem, since he has no forces other than air resistance and gravity acting on him.

As well, the area in the drag equation is actually the cross sectional area of the person or object in question, so I used it correctly. I have no idea what you're talking about, in that sense, but it's the area of the object falling through the fluid.

Sorry, you're still confused. You're using this equation:

To try to find the speed () relative to the air he's travelling through. In this equation, (), is the drag force, the force backwards. That's the definition of drag. Drag is the force in the direction opposite to that of movement (i.e. backwards). (I bolded above where you even say this yourself) But, you're plugging in the weight (force downwards) into the equation as . This is just wrong and meaningless.

For a body flying through the air, () points backwards, Weight points downward, Lift points upward. Lift is not "the same as the drag". Lift is generated partly by the wind hitting the body and partly by the air pressure changes due to the aerodynamic forces on the air foil. But, the point is that, you cant plug in the weight as .

In fact, the only way what you're saying makes sense is if he's falling straight downwards at a constant speed. In that case, yes, the weight would be balanced by the drag. But, that's not even close to the situation we're talking about.

As far as the area, like I already said... what area is used depends on how () is calculated. If you're using a drag coefficient for an airfoil, then the () is normally calculated using the planform area, not the cross-sectional area. But in any case, you're not using either because you calculated the body surface area for a human (DuBois Formula).

@lykopis:

Interesting! So that's basically what I said, he could land on a ramp like a ski jumper does. He might be travelling at 2x the speed of a ski jumper, but with the right setup he could do it. Oddly enough, he thinks he can do it landing on his front. I think my idea of just using skis is much better. When flying down he could tuck them up against his chest to minimize drag (basically what ski jumpers do anyway) and them just let them down when he's about to touch down. If he lands on a surface with a layer of snow (also like I said), he could then turn and slow down like normal. Much easier and safer than having to belly-flop or have ceramic tiles or whatever.

#18 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton: Anyway, drag is actually a force in any direction. Let me explain this further; drag is the result of you moving through a fluid, and the fluid pushing back on you, because it has mass and doesn't like things moving through it (even though it's completely possible and visible in every day phenomena - my fingers are moving through a fluid, air, just to type!). It doesn't have a "direction" in the sense that it's always left, or right, it has a "direction" in the sense it always opposes the direction you're going. If you jump up, and then fall back down, you're affected by drag from the air because you're falling through a fluid, in this case, air. If you sink to the bottom of the ocean, you've got a maximum possible speed, because the water is dragging on you when you move through it. Water is much more dense than air though, so your max velocity would be much lower than in air.

You seem to have mixed up terms that work in descriptions, that are applied in various directions, but physically don't work. Lift is simply a word to describe a force applied to an object in the reverse direction of gravity; it's the same as the drag in this problem! That is because drag is the force of the air pushing back on the person falling through said air! These terms are physically/mathematically equal in this problem, since he has no forces other than air resistance and gravity acting on him.

As well, the area in the drag equation is actually the cross sectional area of the person or object in question, so I used it correctly. I have no idea what you're talking about, in that sense, but it's the area of the object falling through the fluid.

Sorry, you're still confused. You're using this equation:

To try to find the speed () relative to the air he's travelling through. In this equation, (), is the drag force, the force backwards. That's the definition of drag. Drag is the force in the direction opposite to that of movement (i.e. backwards). (I bolded above where you even say this yourself) But, you're plugging in the weight (force downwards) into the equation as . This is just wrong and meaningless.

For a body flying through the air, () points backwards, Weight points downward, Lift points upward. Lift is not "the same as the drag". Lift is generated partly by the wind hitting the body and partly by the air pressure changes due to the aerodynamic forces on the air foil. But, the point is that, you cant plug in the weight as .

In fact, the only way what you're saying makes sense is if he's falling straight downwards at a constant speed. In that case, yes, the weight would be balanced by the drag. But, that's not even close to the situation we're talking about.

As far as the area, like I already said... what area is used depends on how () is calculated. If you're using a drag coefficient for an airfoil, then the () is normally calculated using the planform area, not the cross-sectional area. But in any case, you're not using either because you calculated the body surface area for a human (DuBois Formula).

@lykopis:

Interesting! So that's basically what I said, he could land on a ramp like a ski jumper does. He might be travelling at 2x the speed of a ski jumper, but with the right setup he could do it. Oddly enough, he thinks he can do it landing on his front. I think my idea of just using skis is much better. When flying down he could tuck them up against his chest to minimize drag (basically what ski jumpers do anyway) and them just let them down when he's about to touch down. If he lands on a surface with a layer of snow (also like I said), he could then turn and slow down like normal. Much easier and safer than having to belly-flop or have ceramic tiles or whatever.

OK, we'll get more into the gravity/drag equation problems in a moment (I still don't think we're getting each other in that regard), but I have a different question because I think you correctly pointed out a mistake I made, but I'm not sure.

What area exactly should be used in the drag equation? I've seen/read/learned so many different areas, I'm getting mixed up now. I used the total surface area of the base jumper. What should I have used?

#19 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

OK, we'll get more into the gravity/drag equation problems in a moment (I still don't think we're getting each other in that regard), but I have a different question because I think you correctly pointed out a mistake I made, but I'm not sure.

What area exactly should be used in the drag equation? I've seen/read/learned so many different areas, I'm getting mixed up now. I used the total surface area of the base jumper. What should I have used?

The area to use actually depends on how the drag coefficient is calculated, they are both tied to each other. It's called the "reference area". For most "normal" objects, like lets say a sphere, the area is just the cross-sectional area... the area face-on. So, if you're running down the street, the drag you experience from the air is related to your frontal area.

For airfoils it's calculated differently, since it makes more sense to use the top-down planform view for the area.

Other object types use different areas for drag calculations.

#20 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

OK, we'll get more into the gravity/drag equation problems in a moment (I still don't think we're getting each other in that regard), but I have a different question because I think you correctly pointed out a mistake I made, but I'm not sure.

What area exactly should be used in the drag equation? I've seen/read/learned so many different areas, I'm getting mixed up now. I used the total surface area of the base jumper. What should I have used?

The area to use actually depends on how the drag coefficient is calculated, they are both tied to each other. It's called the "reference area". For most "normal" objects, like lets say a sphere, the area is just the cross-sectional area... the area face-on. So, if you're running down the street, the drag you experience from the air is related to your frontal area.

For airfoils it's calculated differently, since it makes more sense to use the top-down planform view for the area.

Other object types use different areas for drag calculations.

Ahh, yeah, I found it on wikipedia moments ago. I see where I goofed up.

Still, wouldn't that just mean that with less surface area (since I used total surface area, rather than the orthogonal projection area), he'd have to be going even faster to be able to completely glide on/in the air without dropping vertically, thus making my point more valid (that he'd be in grave danger if he tried this stunt)?

#21 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

OK, we'll get more into the gravity/drag equation problems in a moment (I still don't think we're getting each other in that regard), but I have a different question because I think you correctly pointed out a mistake I made, but I'm not sure.

What area exactly should be used in the drag equation? I've seen/read/learned so many different areas, I'm getting mixed up now. I used the total surface area of the base jumper. What should I have used?

The area to use actually depends on how the drag coefficient is calculated, they are both tied to each other. It's called the "reference area". For most "normal" objects, like lets say a sphere, the area is just the cross-sectional area... the area face-on. So, if you're running down the street, the drag you experience from the air is related to your frontal area.

For airfoils it's calculated differently, since it makes more sense to use the top-down planform view for the area.

Other object types use different areas for drag calculations.

Ahh, yeah, I found it on wikipedia moments ago. I see where I goofed up.

Still, wouldn't that just mean that with less surface area (since I used total surface area, rather than the orthogonal projection area), he'd have to be going even faster to be able to completely glide on/in the air without dropping vertically, thus making my point more valid (that he'd be in grave danger if he tried this stunt)?

No. The area thing was more of a minor problem. The main thing is that you're balancing the wrong things. You were trying to calculate a speed based on balancing Drag and Weight, which is just wrong. (see image)

If the wingsuit guy comes in and levels off so that his vertical speed and acceleration are 0, then it means his Weight is balanced by his Lift. We cant really calculate the Lift because it's a complex result of things like the wingsuit shape, surface area, angle of attack, air temperature and pressure, and other factors... none of which we know. We also dont know what his horizontal speed is going to be, or his horizontal acceleration for that matter. (and there WILL be a horizontal acceleration because there's no Thrust, so the Drag force will be the only one in the horizontal direction)

But in reality with a ramp, he doesnt even need to reach 0 vertical speed. The slope of the ramp will determine his vertical speed.

The main thing is he'll need to be pretty precise while approaching it and he'll need enough initial speed because he'll be bleeding off vertical speed by increasing his drag, but he needs to retain enough lift while he does it. If he can generate enough lift from the suit and has enough initial kinetic energy, then in theory he can go from moving straight down to moving completely horizontally. If he can do all that and match his approach angle to the ramp, then he's basically home free. The ramp should be long enough for him to coast to a stop if designed properly. Basically, it's just like that image @lykopis posted, but it'd be smarter to land on skis than on his stomach.

#22 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

OK, we'll get more into the gravity/drag equation problems in a moment (I still don't think we're getting each other in that regard), but I have a different question because I think you correctly pointed out a mistake I made, but I'm not sure.

What area exactly should be used in the drag equation? I've seen/read/learned so many different areas, I'm getting mixed up now. I used the total surface area of the base jumper. What should I have used?

The area to use actually depends on how the drag coefficient is calculated, they are both tied to each other. It's called the "reference area". For most "normal" objects, like lets say a sphere, the area is just the cross-sectional area... the area face-on. So, if you're running down the street, the drag you experience from the air is related to your frontal area.

For airfoils it's calculated differently, since it makes more sense to use the top-down planform view for the area.

Other object types use different areas for drag calculations.

Ahh, yeah, I found it on wikipedia moments ago. I see where I goofed up.

Still, wouldn't that just mean that with less surface area (since I used total surface area, rather than the orthogonal projection area), he'd have to be going even faster to be able to completely glide on/in the air without dropping vertically, thus making my point more valid (that he'd be in grave danger if he tried this stunt)?

No. The area thing was more of a minor problem. The main thing is that you're balancing the wrong things. You were trying to calculate a speed based on balancing Drag and Weight, which is just wrong. (see image)

If the wingsuit guy comes in and levels off so that his vertical speed and acceleration are 0, then it means his Weight is balanced by his Lift. We cant really calculate the Lift because it's a complex result of things like the wingsuit shape, surface area, angle of attack, air temperature and pressure, and other factors... none of which we know. We also dont know what his horizontal speed is going to be, or his horizontal acceleration for that matter. (and there WILL be a horizontal acceleration because there's no Thrust, so the Drag force will be the only one in the horizontal direction)

But in reality with a ramp, he doesnt even need to reach 0 vertical speed. The slope of the ramp will determine his vertical speed.

The main thing is he'll need to be pretty precise while approaching it and he'll need enough initial speed because he'll be bleeding off vertical speed by increasing his drag, but he needs to retain enough lift while he does it. If he can generate enough lift from the suit and has enough initial kinetic energy, then in theory he can go from moving straight down to moving completely horizontally. If he can do all that and match his approach angle to the ramp, then he's basically home free. The ramp should be long enough for him to coast to a stop if designed properly. Basically, it's just like that image @lykopis posted, but it'd be smarter to land on skis than on his stomach.

OK... Here's what I tried to say in my post:

1. Drag is simply the resultant opposite force of you moving through a fluid. It can negate weight, in fact, that's something it primarily does. Drag is another word for air resistance. It is the thing that creates terminal velocity; without air, and without air resistance or drag, you would continue accelerating towards the earth's surface until you hit a solid object and turn into paste. Drag is omnidirectional. It opposes any motion that acts within the fluid medium, in this case air. It opposes weight. It does not, by itself, necessarily generate lift, it simply restricts and restrains the force of gravity acting on the object (which I'm assuming you know is it's mass * 9.8 m/s^2).

2. You yourself point out that there's no thrust. That's true. There's also no other force that's called "lift" in this equation, because he's not being lifted by anything, except the air he's falling on. That's the entire reason for using drag in here. You have gravity's force, and you have the opposing force due to the fact there's air; drag. Drag goes in the opposite direction of gravity. The shape and area of the object is what makes it fly threw the air, using that drag. Without air, obviously, it wouldn't fly, but more subtly, it wouldn't fly specifically because it has no drag to propel it against gravity; it would be free falling. It's complicated to explain how this works, and I'm not sure I can. I'm not a teacher XD but I am 100% positive that I've correctly used these concepts (with the minor faux pas of the area, thanks for pointing that out).

Also, ski's would likely be extremely damaging for his legs, and he'd have to practice an entire new skill set to get the landing right if he used them, whereas he just has to be precise with his angle if he's belly-flopping onto the ramp. Ski's would break his legs and cause a ton of other problems if he screws it up, which is more likely, since joints = more points for things to go wrong, whereas belly-flopping, he lands correctly, he's done, it's a smooth ride, and he only has one thing to practice. If he gets it slightly off, the worst that happens is he's sore, and possibly has some bruising. If he was a little off with his skis, he'd likely die.

#23 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

1. Drag is simply the resultant opposite force of you moving through a fluid. It can negate weight, in fact, that's something it primarily does. Drag is another word for air resistance. It is the thing that creates terminal velocity; without air, and without air resistance or drag, you would continue accelerating towards the earth's surface until you hit a solid object and turn into paste. Drag is omnidirectional. It opposes any motion that acts within the fluid medium, in this case air. It opposes weight. It does not, by itself, necessarily generate lift, it simply restricts and restrains the force of gravity acting on the object (which I'm assuming you know is it's mass * 9.8 m/s^2).

Drag would only negate weight if the object is falling straight down. In this case it's not, so it doesnt.

Drag is not "omnidirectional". Drag is a force relative to a moving object, and as such it works in the direction opposite to the objects movement. That means that drag has a specific direction, one direction. Drag does not "oppose weight", it opposes movement.

@minigunman123 said:

2. You yourself point out that there's no thrust. That's true. There's also no other force that's called "lift" in this equation, because he's not being lifted by anything, except the air he's falling on. That's the entire reason for using drag in here. You have gravity's force, and you have the opposing force due to the fact there's air; drag. Drag goes in the opposite direction of gravity. The shape and area of the object is what makes it fly threw the air, using that drag. Without air, obviously, it wouldn't fly, but more subtly, it wouldn't fly specifically because it has no drag to propel it against gravity; it would be free falling.

Yes, there is lift. That's the whole point of the wingsuit, to generate lift. A person wearing a wingsuit is basically a small glider. The image I posted above is pretty much it, just that he'd have no Thrust. The weight would be constant, and the Lift and Drag would be variable.

@minigunman123 said:

It's complicated to explain how this works, and I'm not sure I can. I'm not a teacher XD but I am 100% positive that I've correctly used these concepts (with the minor faux pas of the area, thanks for pointing that out).

Nope, you're not correctly using these concepts. While an airfoil is partially pushed upwards by going through the air, depending on the angle of attack, that's never described as drag. Drag is always just the force pushing back against movement. But airfoils are also pushed up by differences in air pressure. A wing moving through the air with 0 drag would still generate lift.

@minigunman123 said:

Also, ski's would likely be extremely damaging for his legs, and he'd have to practice an entire new skill set to get the landing right if he used them, whereas he just has to be precise with his angle if he's belly-flopping onto the ramp. Ski's would break his legs and cause a ton of other problems if he screws it up, which is more likely, since joints = more points for things to go wrong, whereas belly-flopping, he lands correctly, he's done, it's a smooth ride, and he only has one thing to practice. If he gets it slightly off, the worst that happens is he's sore, and possibly has some bruising. If he was a little off with his skis, he'd likely die.

Landing on skis will give a certain amount of springiness, certainly much more so than landing on his stomach. It would not break his legs if he approaches at the right speed and angle for the ramp. Whether or not it'd be easy or hard doesnt matter, I never said it'd be easy, just that it'd be possible.

#24 Posted by Miss_America (29 posts) - - Show Bio

I think my nose is bleeding from all the physics in here but cool video! ;)

#25 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton: You're not going to learn what I'm saying, you're just going to argue against what I'm saying, for some reason, and that's fine; but I've explained everything fairly clearly, you're not even making much sense with what you're saying anymore. If I tried to rebuke what you've said, we'd go in circles, and that doesn't help anyone. I'm done trying to teach you physics. You'll have to learn it on your own from here on out, hopefully correctly. Have fun.

#26 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton: You're not going to learn what I'm saying, you're just going to argue against what I'm saying, for some reason, and that's fine; but I've explained everything fairly clearly, you're not even making much sense with what you're saying anymore. If I tried to rebuke what you've said, we'd go in circles, and that doesn't help anyone. I'm done trying to teach you physics. You'll have to learn it on your own from here on out, hopefully correctly. Have fun.

I think this is the part where I point out that I have a degree in Astrophysics. =)

@Miss_America said:

I think my nose is bleeding from all the physics in here but cool video! ;)

Thank you!

#27 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

@WillPayton: You're not going to learn what I'm saying, you're just going to argue against what I'm saying, for some reason, and that's fine; but I've explained everything fairly clearly, you're not even making much sense with what you're saying anymore. If I tried to rebuke what you've said, we'd go in circles, and that doesn't help anyone. I'm done trying to teach you physics. You'll have to learn it on your own from here on out, hopefully correctly. Have fun.

I think this is the part where I point out that I have a degree in Astrophysics. =)

@Miss_America said:

I think my nose is bleeding from all the physics in here but cool video! ;)

Thank you!

And this is the part where I point out I'm the King of Australia. =)

#28 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

And this is the part where I point out I'm the King of Australia. =)

LOL... except mine is true.

#29 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17801 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

And this is the part where I point out I'm the King of Australia. =)

LOL... except mine is true.

Payton is right he is not joking.

#30 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

And this is the part where I point out I'm the King of Australia. =)

LOL... except mine is true.

Payton is right he is not joking.

Assuming he's actually got "a degree" in astrophysics, that's not necessarily got anything to do with his knowledge fluid dynamics and/or aerodynamics, which is basically what this problem is. He's having great difficulty dealing with the concept of air resistance, for some reason. He either has a two year degree (which, in physics, means next to nothing) in the stuff which would not cover these topics very well, or he's a very bad physicist, or he simply didn't study these topics in school for some reason. He isn't correct. I know someone who minored in physics when they got their double bachelor's in mathematics and chemistry, and I just spoke to them about this, and they agree that Payton is dead wrong, and has no idea what he is talking about.

I have also never heard of him (Payton) ever mention physics of any kind, or mention his job or credentials, or appear to actually know much about science in general, to the degree I would believe he has any sort of respectable university education. I find all of this very hard to believe, and think you're both now trolling me.

#31 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Payton is right he is not joking.

Assuming he's actually got "a degree" in astrophysics, that's not necessarily got anything to do with his knowledge fluid dynamics and/or aerodynamics, which is basically what this problem is. He's having great difficulty dealing with the concept of air resistance, for some reason. He either has a two year degree (which, in physics, means next to nothing) in the stuff which would not cover these topics very well, or he's a very bad physicist, or he simply didn't study these topics in school for some reason. He isn't correct. I know someone who minored in physics when they got their double bachelor's in mathematics and chemistry, and I just spoke to them about this, and they agree that Payton is dead wrong, and has no idea what he is talking about.

I have also never heard of him (Payton) ever mention physics of any kind, or mention his job or credentials, or appear to actually know much about science in general, to the degree I would believe he has any sort of respectable university education. I find all of this very hard to believe, and think you're both now trolling me.

I dont know what to tell you dude. You dont have to accept what I told you if you dont want to. But, like I said at the beginning, you're confused. Go back and re-read what I posted. I guarantee you everything I described about the physics of this situation is correct.

In any case, I'm not trolling you. @mrdecepticonleader knows this because I have talked about my credentials before, so he's probably remembering one of those threads. Regardless, I have a BS in Astrophysics from UCLA.

#32 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17801 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@minigunman123 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Payton is right he is not joking.

Assuming he's actually got "a degree" in astrophysics, that's not necessarily got anything to do with his knowledge fluid dynamics and/or aerodynamics, which is basically what this problem is. He's having great difficulty dealing with the concept of air resistance, for some reason. He either has a two year degree (which, in physics, means next to nothing) in the stuff which would not cover these topics very well, or he's a very bad physicist, or he simply didn't study these topics in school for some reason. He isn't correct. I know someone who minored in physics when they got their double bachelor's in mathematics and chemistry, and I just spoke to them about this, and they agree that Payton is dead wrong, and has no idea what he is talking about.

I have also never heard of him (Payton) ever mention physics of any kind, or mention his job or credentials, or appear to actually know much about science in general, to the degree I would believe he has any sort of respectable university education. I find all of this very hard to believe, and think you're both now trolling me.

I dont know what to tell you dude. You dont have to accept what I told you if you dont want to. But, like I said at the beginning, you're confused. Go back and re-read what I posted. I guarantee you everything I described about the physics of this situation is correct.

In any case, I'm not trolling you. @mrdecepticonleader knows this because I have talked about my credentials before, so he's probably remembering one of those threads. Regardless, I have a BS in Astrophysics from UCLA.

Exactly I am not trolling I was just reading through this thread and recognized what was been said.

#33 Posted by texasdeathmatch (13171 posts) - - Show Bio

...I feel dumb.

#34 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@texasdeathmatch said:

...I feel dumb.

Nonsense.

#35 Posted by cameron83 (7133 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123: @WillPayton:

GAAAHHH!!!!! SCIENCE OVERLOAD!!!!!!

#36 Posted by cameron83 (7133 posts) - - Show Bio

@WillPayton said:

@texasdeathmatch said:

...I feel dumb.

Nonsense.

Agreed...I feel stupid!

STOP RUBBING IT IN WILLPAYTON AND MINIGUNMAN123!!!

#37 Posted by WillPayton (9325 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@minigunman123: @WillPayton:

GAAAHHH!!!!! SCIENCE OVERLOAD!!!!!!