Having fun with some of the comments here. So let me add my two cents about paraglider aerodynamics. 1) The pilot position in space and relative to the wing is NOT CONSTANT. It can never be taken out of the equation by assuming it is just some constant weight. Examples: Pitch-pendulum movement / Infinity tumbling. What it tells us: Depending on the point of time we pick there will be significant differences in the system. Relative wind, angle of attack and lateral distribution of the loading will change. The last bit is important so I will repeat it - LATERAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADING WILL CHANGE. 2) Paraglider airfoil profile is NOT symmetrical and it is NOT rigid. We also should consider it both FLEXIBLE and MORPHING. What it tells us: - Rigid airfoil theory applies ONLY to steady level flight conditions. In maneuvers paraglider shape is "questionable". - Same input of 25% brakes will have different effect based on what is the current flight configuration of the system. - Full Stall, one of the aviation big "No go"-s , is really FLEXIBLE when it comes to paragliders. Back-Fly, parachutal, Acro-style quick release... So based on 1) and 2) I agree with Mendo's aproach to not show a continuous change or transitions, as this will cause other misconceptions. For example a rapid 50% pull on the brakes causes temporary pitch oscillation, but we are only interested in the long term effect which is in fact increase in the lift and decrease of the airspeed. About the video content. From a practical point of view the explanation is perfect. From purely scientific one - it is clearly lacking and somewhat incorrect. It is not okay to take the quantities you like and link them to prove a point. Forces like to exist in equilibrium and on the diagrams things look very one-sided. And as someone already mentioned in the comments, airspeed as a force makes no sense. With all that said, big thanks to Mendo. He has the courage to question and tackle one of the biggest misconceptions in paragliding. And what is more important he is changing the SIV training to something a lot less stressful and educational. Keep up the good work! Massive respect to you and the way you change our sport for the better :)
This was interesting but the angle of the wing and position of the pilot is all wrong, probably a limitation of the drawing software? Also transitioning to the next stage would be far easier to interpret than this was.
The backflying and wing shape are correct but the vector sum are completely wrong. Dude you cannot sum weight and velocity. They are two totally different things. It is correct that you always fly backwards in the full stall and you have repeating collapses from behind because it is like you are pulling the A-lines all the time. But due to the reversed flight direction, brakes are your A-lines now. Only during deep stall, you are actually in a stall situation but it is not a stable position. So the wing goes either forward or backward.
Having fun with some of the comments here. So let me add my two cents about paraglider aerodynamics.
1) The pilot position in space and relative to the wing is NOT CONSTANT. It can never be taken out of the equation by assuming it is just some constant weight.
Examples: Pitch-pendulum movement / Infinity tumbling.
What it tells us: Depending on the point of time we pick there will be significant differences in the system. Relative wind, angle of attack and lateral distribution of the loading will change. The last bit is important so I will repeat it - LATERAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADING WILL CHANGE.
2) Paraglider airfoil profile is NOT symmetrical and it is NOT rigid. We also should consider it both FLEXIBLE and MORPHING.
What it tells us:
- Rigid airfoil theory applies ONLY to steady level flight conditions. In maneuvers paraglider shape is "questionable".
- Same input of 25% brakes will have different effect based on what is the current flight configuration of the system.
- Full Stall, one of the aviation big "No go"-s , is really FLEXIBLE when it comes to paragliders. Back-Fly, parachutal, Acro-style quick release...
So based on 1) and 2) I agree with Mendo's aproach to not show a continuous change or transitions, as this will cause other misconceptions. For example a rapid 50% pull on the brakes causes temporary pitch oscillation, but we are only interested in the long term effect which is in fact increase in the lift and decrease of the airspeed.
About the video content. From a practical point of view the explanation is perfect. From purely scientific one - it is clearly lacking and somewhat incorrect. It is not okay to take the quantities you like and link them to prove a point. Forces like to exist in equilibrium and on the diagrams things look very one-sided. And as someone already mentioned in the comments, airspeed as a force makes no sense.
With all that said, big thanks to Mendo. He has the courage to question and tackle one of the biggest misconceptions in paragliding. And what is more important he is changing the SIV training to something a lot less stressful and educational. Keep up the good work! Massive respect to you and the way you change our sport for the better :)
Very good bro
This was interesting but the angle of the wing and position of the pilot is all wrong, probably a limitation of the drawing software? Also transitioning to the next stage would be far easier to interpret than this was.
The backflying and wing shape are correct but the vector sum are completely wrong. Dude you cannot sum weight and velocity. They are two totally different things.
It is correct that you always fly backwards in the full stall and you have repeating collapses from behind because it is like you are pulling the A-lines all the time. But due to the reversed flight direction, brakes are your A-lines now. Only during deep stall, you are actually in a stall situation but it is not a stable position. So the wing goes either forward or backward.
Is it a full stall or not? Using " " means that what you write either is a quote or ironic.
The name full stall is wrong an inappropriate for this maneuver. I couldn't avoided being little bit ironic.
@@mendomacedonia You need to be consistent.
@@TheTormhel I have reasons why I am ironic.
Waste of time watching you draw repetitive separate diagrams ...show the changes continuously ..please
Learn the chord angle against horizon before you get in something more complicated, will you...
Somebody of us should learn the basics. I am not that one
@@mendomacedonia Don't know about that... The gliders on your drawings would fly backwards.
@@curiouscat8457 They do fly backwards.
from 1:53 on you are clearly showing a glider in a stabilised forward glide with chord line inclined sharply upwards.
@@curiouscat8457 You really don't understand aerodynamics, don't you?