Page 1 of 1
Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:50 pm
by Psychedelic Rhino
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:20 pm
by MrTwosheds
I wonder if a backpack full of micro copters on strings would work as well as all those cardboard boxes?

Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:31 pm
by Ded10c
Please don't tempt him.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:41 pm
by Red Devil
that's not land...
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:27 am
by Zenophas
That's cute. Kinda like a flying squrriel.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:38 am
by Psychedelic Rhino
I'm thinking once those guys learn to flare out and stall down to around 40mph, all sorts of landings could be possible. . . snow, water, moving net platform, you name it.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:35 am
by MrTwosheds
I'm thinking those suits rely on considerable forward velocity to counteract gravity, stalling is exactly what you don't want to happen, the slower the forward velocity, the faster you fall.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:11 am
by Psychedelic Rhino
MrTwosheds wrote:I'm thinking those suits rely on considerable forward velocity to counteract gravity, stalling is exactly what you don't want to happen, the slower the forward velocity, the faster you fall.
Well yes, just like all airfoils. A squirrel suit is just an inefficient and crude airfoil.
But stalling for the purpose I am referring to would be used at the extreme end of the flight, shedding the majority of forward velocity and smooth lift for a very brief period of extremely inefficient high lift. You can bet that stuntman attempted at least some effort to stall or flare just before impact. . . if nothing else, it would be a natural reaction.
It's all about the timing. If you don't get it right, you could be stalling down to 50-80mph, and if you screwed up and you're dozens of meters above the ground, you're in deep trouble, a parachute is worthless.
The problem remains. . . the average Joe is 170lbs and around 6 feet tall, a 'fat' maximum star shaped frontal area of a guy spreading his arms and legs, just isn't enough to flare or break to a sufficient slow speed to ever make it "safe", even if the flyer performs a stall perfectly. The flyer simply can't bring a cresting parabolic arc velocity anywhere close to zero. So there will ALWAYS be a fairly sizable forward velocity on landing.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:22 am
by Nielk1
That is something I like to do in Ace Combat to try to land my jet in the area of a heli-pad. But that is a game.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:25 am
by Echo 343
Zenophas wrote:That's cute. Kinda like a flying squrriel.
You just reminded me of Rocky and Bullwinkle. Christ, I feel lame.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:56 am
by Zax
Better, sadder, more British headline: Man unintentionally lands without parachute.
Re: Man intentionally lands without parachute
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:30 am
by Red Spot
Psychedelic Rhino wrote:I'm thinking once those guys learn to flare out and stall down to around 40mph, all sorts of landings could be possible. . . snow, water, moving net platform, you name it.
As in you wont completelly splat to death but only risk breaking your neck, and every other bone in your body?
