Searching \ for '[EE] Swiss pilot achieves his flight of fancy' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=swiss+pilot+achieves
Search entire site for: 'Swiss pilot achieves his flight of fancy'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Swiss pilot achieves his flight of fancy'
2007\03\23@183009 by Jinx

face picon face

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10430592

Swiss airline pilot Yves Rossy flies through the air over Spain at 185km/h
wearing jet-powered carbon-fibre wings

He jumped from a plane over Empuriabrava, glided to 2499m ***
and then flew horizontally for four minutes

The photographs, taken on March 12, were posted by Rossy on his
FusionMan project website as a build-up to his showing off his creation
at the Geneva International Exhibition of Inventions next month

http://www.jet-man.com/

(*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)

2007\03\23@201212 by Recon

picon face
Jinx wrote:

>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10430592
>
>Swiss airline pilot Yves Rossy flies through the air over Spain at 185km/h
>wearing jet-powered carbon-fibre wings
>
>He jumped from a plane over Empuriabrava, glided to 2499m ***
>and then flew horizontally for four minutes
>
>The photographs, taken on March 12, were posted by Rossy on his
>FusionMan project website as a build-up to his showing off his creation
>at the Geneva International Exhibition of Inventions next month
>
>http://www.jet-man.com/
>
>(*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)
>
>  
>
RADAR Altimeter or maybe even a laser range finder.  Much more accurate
then the old fashion barometric altimeters. Or maybe even the high end
GPS units.  For a few thousand  the surveyors here in the states are
supposed to get accuracy down to inches.

Recon

2007\03\23@210939 by Jinx

face picon face

> >(*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)

> For a few thousand  the surveyors here in the states are
> supposed to get accuracy down to inches.

Moving target that far away - not too shabby

2007\03\23@224309 by Cristóvão Dalla Costa

picon face
On 3/23/07, Recon <spam_OUT556reconTakeThisOuTspamcharter.net> wrote:
>
>
> RADAR Altimeter or maybe even a laser range finder.  Much more accurate
> then the old fashion barometric altimeters. Or maybe even the high end
> GPS units.  For a few thousand  the surveyors here in the states are
> supposed to get accuracy down to inches.
>

Yes, but to get that kind of accuracy they leave their GPS receivers
listening for hours averaging out the errors over time. Not the case here.

2007\03\24@055118 by Peter P.

picon face
Jinx <joecolquitt <at> clear.net.nz> writes:

> (*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)

'High precision' readout on digital altimeter with (better than standard) +/-15m
accuracy, not corrected for vertical temperature gradient ? ... aka 'our
marketing dept. does it better than engineering since we can add digits to the
readout without adding significant cost'.

Actually I think that such an accurate reading can be taken using optical
triangulation (1 meter at 2500 in isosceles tri. is almost exactly 1 arc minute).

Peter P.


2007\03\26@043220 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>(*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)

Sounds like there was some civil aviation set ceiling at 3000m he couldn't
fly above ;)

2007\03\26@045309 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> For a few thousand  the surveyors here in the states are
>> supposed to get accuracy down to inches.
>>
>
>Yes, but to get that kind of accuracy they leave their GPS
>receivers listening for hours averaging out the errors over
>time. Not the case here.

I always understood they were licensed to use the high accuracy data stream,
not the normal one used for consumer GPS. They certainly cannot wait around
for ages to get an average done.

2007\03\26@053546 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Don't forget that you can measure a flying object from the ground. I can
imagine 3 measurement points, each of them are pointing to the same object
(by laser for example) and then calculating the altitude and position
(therefore the speed) by trigonometrics.

Tamas


On 3/26/07, Alan B. Pearce <.....A.B.PearceKILLspamspam@spam@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\03\26@101406 by Gordon Williams

picon face
It is not uncommon for surveyors can measure down to the mm using static
equipment and at the cm level for dynamic measurements.  Google for "real
time kinetic" RTK.  Positioning can be done real time or data can be logged
and then post-processed.  For these accuracies you need a receiver that can
receive both the L1 frequency (Civil) and L2 (Military) to cancel out some
of the ionospheric time delay effects as well as a stationary reference
receiver within roughly a 100 km radius.

Receiver designers are getting quite smart with their algorithms.  While the
receiver is not able to fully decode the L2 signal it is able to obtain
enough information from it to be useful.  No special licence is required,
only a significant amount of cash.  High quality receiver/antenna systems
would set you back $20 - 30 K a few years ago when I looked.

Even consumer GPS systems can determine position more accurately if you can
extract the pseudorange, carrier and doppler information from them and then
post-process it.

Regards,

Gordon Williams



{Original Message removed}

2007\03\26@103126 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>For these accuracies you need a receiver that can receive both
>the L1 frequency (Civil) and L2 (Military) to cancel out some
>of the ionospheric time delay effects as well as a stationary
>reference receiver within roughly a 100 km radius.

That is what I was figuring the survey equipment does.

>Receiver designers are getting quite smart with their algorithms.
>While the receiver is not able to fully decode the L2 signal it is
>able to obtain enough information from it to be useful.  No special
>licence is required, only a significant amount of cash.  High
>quality receiver/antenna systems would set you back $20 - 30 K a
>few years ago when I looked.

which would be the sort of starting figure I imagine the surveyors gear
costs.

2007\03\26@135735 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 3/26/07, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.PearcespamKILLspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >(*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)
>
> Sounds like there was some civil aviation set ceiling at 3000m he couldn't
> fly above ;)

There's always the possibility there's a much simpler solution here...

They may have taken along a "calibrated" altimeter certified by ICAO.

Yes, the device has limitations that mean the "measurement" isn't as
accurate as the final number makes it appear to be... but...

When you're shooting for records, the ONLY thing that counts is the
so-called "certified"  altimeter.   If it reads a max of 2499m... then
that's your record.

Doesn't matter if the number is silly or makes it appear like the
instrument can actually measure accurately to within a meter with no
errors... it's what the certified instrument said.  End of story... at
least as far as the ICAO is concerned.

But... I'm just guessing here... I have no idea if he was carrying a
so-called "certified" instrument or attempting to set any official
records.

Another possibility... an analog altimeter with a high altitude
needle... they land, look at it and say, "Well... you can see that's
not exactly 3000m... it's a hair lower..."... [pause]... "Oh hell,
just call it 2499m and let's go home.  We did something no one else
has ever done today... that's good enough.  Let the PICList argue as
much as they want about it later."

:-)

Nate

2007\03\26@203216 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Nate Duehr wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Alan B. Pearce <.....A.B.PearceKILLspamspam.....rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>  
>>> (*** 2499m ??? !!! Who measured that ?)
>>>      
>> Sounds like there was some civil aviation set ceiling at 3000m he couldn't
>> fly above ;)
>>    
Even if it was +- 15 meters the reading would still be 2499m
should he not put down the number measured?

2007\03\27@041505 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>that's good enough.  Let the PICList argue as
>much as they want about it later."

yeah, well its doing that alright ... ;))))))

2007\03\27@091226 by Walter Banks

picon face


Nate Duehr wrote:

> Another possibility... an analog altimeter with a high altitude
> needle... they land, look at it and say, "Well... you can see that's
> not exactly 3000m... it's a hair lower..."... [pause]... "Oh hell,
> just call it 2499m and let's go home.  We did something no one else
> has ever done today... that's good enough.  Let the PICList argue as
> much as they want about it later."

After the adrenaline rush, shydivers are addicted to toys. I am
pretty impressed with the technology they are using. The
typical usb data logging altimeter fits inside helmet is
permanately on,  self calibrating and profiles the details of
the last the 10 jumps or so and incidentally is a pull alarm.

The accuracy is about  +/- 1.2%. The following manual
is typical

http://www.l-and-b.dk/pdf/english_protrack.pdf


w..





2007\03\27@092813 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jake Anderson wrote:

> Even if it was +- 15 meters the reading would still be 2499m
> should he not put down the number measured?

In that case, he should put down the range also. By that measure, he could
put down 10'000 m (with an implied +- 8'000 m :)

I thought it was considered good style to only use significant digits. But
maybe that's because I started with reading measurements in the pre-digital
era -- where the reader, not the instrument, was responsible for generating
the numbers :)

Gerhard

2007\03\27@185010 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 3/27/07, Walter Banks <EraseMEwalterspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTbytecraft.com> wrote:

> After the adrenaline rush, shydivers are addicted to toys. I am

Interesting typo?  "shydivers"?

It's giving me ideas about some horrible new "reality TV" show... shy
people forced to date or something like that... eeek.

Nate

2007\03\27@191854 by Jinx

face picon face
> It's giving me ideas about some horrible new "reality TV" show... shy
> people forced to date or something like that... eeek.

Isn't that the premise of the execrable "Beauty And The Geek" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Geek

Reality ? Yeah, right

The more of that crap the better. Get so much done with the TV off.
An un-interrupted 16-hour programming day that goes swimmingly.
That's the sort of "reality" I prefer (no, I'm not a geek, but some
satisfaction is better and more rewarding than others)

2007\03\28@033257 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Here is the video of the JetMan in action.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7104898430798485644

Tamas


On 3/28/07, Jinx <joecolquittspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\03\28@054729 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > After the adrenaline rush, shydivers are addicted to toys. I am
>
> Interesting typo?  "shydivers"?
>
> It's giving me ideas about some horrible new "reality TV"
> show... shy people forced to date or something like that... eeek.
>
> Nate


Bet you're kicking yourself for not thinking of the obvious - tossing
acrophobiacs out of a plane.

Tony

(ok, different shy, but still valid.  Hooray for English?)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...