Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Swooping and Canopy Control:
Does it concern anyone that . . .

 


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 12, 2001, 3:39 PM
Post #1 of 93 (4563 views)
Shortcut
Does it concern anyone that . . . Can't Post

Does it concern anyone that the only types of questions and answers yet posted to this forum are the ones that involve swoop type landings?

Where are the newbies with their questions about soft and easy landings?


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Zennie

Dec 12, 2001, 3:55 PM
Post #2 of 93 (4489 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Well the forum is called "Swooping & Canopy Control".

But if you're bothered that many people are interested in swooping I'd note just a few things...

First, swooping is becoming very popular.... to the point of having entire events based around it. So I think it's kind of natural for people to become interested and ask quesitons about it.

Second, most of the "standard" landing skills should have hopefully been covered while folks were still on student status. Not that such questions wouldn't be welcomed here anyway.

Finally and most important, I think forums like this are a good thing from a safety perspective. If people talk about techniques & training methodologies, I think more people will use safe practices which reduce the risk of injury.

Me personally? I want to learn to swoop. Not to impress anyone (I'm married), but because it's fun. At the same time I'm not in any big macho race to fly the smallest canopy or bust out a 180 snap hook at 400 feet with my jump numbers.

I'm going at it gradually and trying to learn how my canopy flies. The questions that I've seen here seem to be from people who are at a similar stage and I find the questions intelligent and the provided information extremely useful.

Just my $0.02

"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 12, 2001, 4:25 PM
Post #3 of 93 (4476 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

It doesn't bother me (too much) that people are interested in swooping. What does concern me is that (and I might be totally off base with this assumption) there are people that don't have their D-license yet, but are already jonesing for high-performance landings.

As for covering the basics while on student status . . . don't even get me started! Wait, too late, you just did.

At my DZ, there are people, skydivers, with many years in the sport and close to 1,000 jumps that for some reason haven't figured out how to land their canopy. I don't mean they haven't learned to land their canopy "properly", I mean they consistantly biff in on their asses.

Now, maybe it's different where you jump, but this is something I've noticed over the course of several years and at several drop zones around the country.

What's worse is that somebody out there keeps telling these folks that the "right" way to land a canopy is to build up a little excess speed. I've actually heard -this- phrase from a professional swoop competitor as advice to newbies "airspeed equalls lift". Besides being mostly wrong -- I can not think of anything more dangerous to say to a newbie.

As for your arguments . . .

1) Yeah, there are swoop contests. There are also two types of accuracy landing contests and Pro-rating landings.

2) I think I already covered in my semi-rant.

3) I'll agree with education being a good thing.

4) If you think you're not doing something to impress anyone, then look into a mirror. Hey, it's FINE to do this, but don't kid yourself. The only reason anyone does anything is because they want to. That includes paying taxes -- you could always take the jail time. ;^) So, anyway, yes, you're doing it to impress yourself. There's no other -logical- reason.

So, don't get me wrong, I think this is a fine forum, but I'm just concerned that the emphasis is going to get -way- skewed.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Dec 12, 2001, 4:35 PM
Post #4 of 93 (4472 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Whats concerning me even more are there are seveal people on here that are less then 100 jumps and they are considering thier 1.3 or 1.4 loading to be modest. Not to go Canopy Nazi on everyone but this should not be allowed to happen. 1.3 or 1.4 is the same loading that some of the people at the Pond Swoop Nationals this year with a few 1000 jumps were jumping. How is it that low timers think they can fly the same exact canopy as well as those with 1000's more jumps then them?
I started on canopies at .75:1-.9:1 loading less then 2 years ago. I made lots of mistakes (I'll admit to most of them) and had it not been for the larger canopy, I probally would have never made it to jump 20 without a broken leg. At jump 35 I got a ZP canopy and loaded it 1.1:1. This allowed me to learn the skills needed for survival and still work on better and higher speed landings. At 185 jumps I was finally ready for a 1.25 loading. A demod a canopy for 10 jumps and went back to the larger canopy after seeing that I had some to learn still. At 215 jumps I bought the Cobalt 150 that I currently have. Now I don't consider my self to be a slow learner, but how has everyone else learned the same skills in less then 75 or 100 jumps to be on a 1.4:1 loading that its taken me 255 to learn thus far? I took a canopy out on Saturday at 1.58:1 and after 1 jump gave it back because I realized that I am not even close to the skill level needed to fly it great, let alone swoop with it. I could fly it fine and it was a blast to fly, but what would I learn on it? Not too much right away other then just surviving it again.
Comments?
Phree
Canopy Nazi #2 and damn proud of it!

I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on Dec 12, 2001, 8:12 PM)


Zennie

Dec 12, 2001, 5:10 PM
Post #5 of 93 (4462 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Nah I'm with you on the aggressive downsizing.

I'm doing about the same as you. Have around 160 on my Sabre 150 loaded around 1.2. I'm looking at a Cobalt 135 which would put me around 1.37. I feel ready and I've asked a lot of people who know me and my flying, and who have jumps in the thousands if I was ready for that loading and they thought so. So I haven't just made this decision without a lot of consultation.

I demoed a Vengeance in the same size and decided that was way too much canopy for me. I'll prolly try a Stiletto and Crossfire in the same size, but my guess is I'll go with the Cobalt. The Cobalt seems to have just the right mix of performance & forgiveness I'm looking for. So even at a given loading you really need to shop around.

But getting to your point. I've seen a *lot* of people with low jump numbers (i.e. below 500) getting into these crazy downsizing contests. One guy goes to a 120, so the next guy goes to a 110 and so on, and so on. It's silly and dangerous.

There is a big big difference between being able to land a canopy and being able to fly it safely. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that. I could tell from flying the Cobalt at 1.3-ish that it has way more drive, which means you really have to be heads up when flying back to the DZ. I'll have plenty of performance for several hundred jumps.

And one point was made in another thread that I wish more people would learn... it ain't so much the canopy loading as the pilot. Try to be a better pilot before going to the hanky-chute just because you think you'll get more swoop.

Yet another $0.02 Wink

"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."


freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 12, 2001, 5:36 PM
Post #6 of 93 (4453 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose I could chime in. I am not into flame wars. So don't bother.

I feel, if anybody is interested in learning to swoop learn it before you downsize. It seems some get the mentality that a 270 swoop landing is only for a higher wing loading. If you can progressively learn how to do that, with accuracy and safety on a lighter loading, you will be able to transfer that to your new canopy. Proper technique and all includes learning to land soft and slow.

The Australian Parachute Foundation has a high performance flight manual. One thing I found interesting that they said was something to the affect of "We don't endorse or encourage high speed landings, but if you are going to do it, this is how you should learn..." I think it was nice of them to say that. In this country (US) all the litigation crap often keeps people from saying anything. For fear of being sued. That is sad.

So take from it what you will. But we shouldn't create and environment where people are scared to ask for advice. If we do, they may just try to learn on their own. It is really better to be taught.

The amount of gain, and the amount you take from this forum is, and should be limited. Because the best teacher is someone that knows what your skill level is, and can watch and critique your progression. So with anything here, be careful with it, think about it, and see how you can carefully apply it. Or come hang out with us for a while.

With that in mind. Yahoo. I love to swoop!!!



skycat  (D 25740)

Dec 12, 2001, 6:57 PM
Post #7 of 93 (4434 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't forget Zennie that you did learn under a Saber not an F111 like a lot of us did. I really feel that that did give you a slight advantage over someone like me who learned on an F111 with maybe a wingloading of .5 (really it was a round with squared off corners. Smile ) I mean it took me 200 jumps before I had actually downsized to a 1.1:1 wingloading.

So I think what you learned under does make a difference on what you are flying after student status.

Kelli



Spectrejumper  (D 23312)

Dec 12, 2001, 8:06 PM
Post #8 of 93 (4417 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I totally agree with you Phree. It wasn't that long ago that nobody would let you jump a Stiletto until you had 500 jumps. Now it seems everybody is rushing to get a highly loaded elliptical as soon as they graduate AFF. It concerns me even more that people are selling these canopies to jumpers who probably shouldn't be jumping them. I realize that much of our sport is about personal choice, and we're all big boys and girls, but I think there should be some responsibility. I guess I'll stop ranting now. Maybe I qualify for the coveted Canopy Nazi #3. :-)


Mike D-23312
"It's such a shame to spend your time away like this...existing." JMH


prost  (D 24959)

Dec 12, 2001, 8:14 PM
Post #9 of 93 (4414 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Quade, while I do agree with you on the points you make about newbies, I want to point out one thing. Addressing the comment you made about "Airspeed equals lift", they were right, the more airspeed the more lift. If a canopy has no airspeed, the canopy has no lift. While I do agree with you that we do not need to teach newbies high speed landings before they learn other skills, we shouldn't teach them false info.

William



Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 12, 2001, 10:38 PM
Post #10 of 93 (4402 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

For all the folks that "think" they know what the hell they're talking about when they say "Airspeed Equals Lift", please do the following experiment with me.

First some background . . . use your imaginations on this.

Since I'm your flight instructor, I would have already told you about the four forces of flight and how they oppose each other. Thrust opposes drag and lift opposes weight.

Let's go flying!

We're in a Bugsmasher 152 and right at this moment the airplane weighs a total of 1610 pounds. The wing loading is 10.5:1.

We're in straight and level flight, full power and we're "cruising" at a glorious 105 knots.

Ok, we're -not- gaining altitude and we're -not- losing altitude -- we're -maintaining- altitude at 5,000 feet MSL.

Quick -- about how much lift is being created by the wing?

Hmmm, keep that answer in your head for a minute while we reduce the speed of the airplane a bit.

Let's pull back the throttle a bit a -while we maintain altitude- slow down to 60 knots. We'll maintain altitude by changing the angle of attack of the wing.

Quick -- about how much lift is being created by the wing?

Hmmm, let's slow down a little more.

We'll pull back the throttle a bit more and then (this is something most students don't understand) we'll have to add power to go even slower -while we maintain altitude-. Again, we'll maintain altitude by changing the angle of attack of the wing.

We're NOW going about 42 knots. We're still maintaining altitude and we're still in complete control of the aircraft. It just happens to be set up the same way it would be if we were flairing out for a landing.

Quick -- about how much lift is being created by the wing?

Ok, I'm not going to say in this post whether your answer was right or wrong but lemme ask you . . . does airspeed equal lift?


Paul
547903789CFI exp. 30 Jun 2003



http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


BenW  (C License)

Dec 13, 2001, 1:58 AM
Post #11 of 93 (4391 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Your changing the angle of the wing here.

On a canopy, we are set with a fixed angle of attack, unless we play with the risers. So, this situation of yours is correct in it's situation, but not, imho, analogous to the skydive wing.

Ben




mgaillar  (B 25118)

Dec 13, 2001, 7:04 AM
Post #12 of 93 (4364 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm no flight instructor or aeronautical engineer...in fact, I don't know squat about aerodynamics of a wing and I am only now learning the aerodynamics of a canopy. However, the numerous resources I have read and/or listened to, all claim the same.....forward speed converts to lift, particularly when flaring. Therefore I assume more speed equals more lift. I also read about basic aerodynamics from The Book of Canopy Control by Bryan Burke (http://www.skydiveaz.com/resources/book_canopy.htm). Chapter one, third paragraph........

"A canopy produces lift in two ways. The form of the wing itself produces some lift. Wings are
shaped so that air must flow faster over the top of the wing than the bottom. When the velocity of
air increases, its pressure decreases. This creates a low pressure area on the top of the wing, and a
corresponding higher pressure below. Thus the wing is "lifted" towards the low pressure area."

Makes sense to me that the more airspeed the less pressure on the top of the wing and more pressure on the bottom, which in-turn creates lift.

Like I said....just info I have read/heard about.

Incidently, Burke's "book" has some cool info in it.

Blues to you all.
Peace!
Matt

http://www.skydiveorange.com


RemiAndKaren  (C 2328)

Dec 13, 2001, 7:28 AM
Post #13 of 93 (4354 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

all things being kept equal, if you increase the speed, you will increase the lift.

If you decrease the angle of attack, you'll increase the lift.

Thats why when you land, you apply brakes, hence reducing the effective angle of attack of the canopy, creating the same lift with less and less speed.

I think we're all splitting hairs here....

Remi
Muff 914


Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 13, 2001, 7:48 AM
Post #14 of 93 (4344 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to agree with Kelli on this one. I started my skydiving on July 14th 2001 with a tandem jump. I've now completed the AFP Student Program at Skydive Spaceland. I think it is a very progressive DZ. All the students were jumping Javelin containers with Sabre mains and PD Reserves w/AAD & RSL's. My wing loading on my first AFP Jump was 1.2 I weigh 175 + 25 gear = 200 otd on a Sabre 170 ZP Canopy. Now do you think this is unsafe? I think it is a very progressive way to teach new students. If your JM feels your not ready to fly these types & sizes then he has the right to make you fly something bigger. Spaceland has sizes ranging from a 290 down to a Sabre150. Depending on your size and your flight ability. I was a natural at skydiving and canopy control. I've only got 37 jumps so far. I'm still loading my Silhouette170 at close to 1.2 I've also made a few jumps on a Sabre2 150 and I loaded it at 1.33 I'm a very conservitive canopy pilot. I'm not wanting to "swoops" snap hookit" I'm wanting to have fun and I am! Smile Now if you think my DZ was wrong in teaching me on this equipment and you think I'm crazy for flying it. Let them and myself known. Just because most of you were taught on HUGE MONSTER canopies I'm sorry. I think I was taught the best way for the future of this sport. I wasn't caudled, my hand wasn't held and I was SAFELY TAUGHT how to do things the right way with the latest equipment at the time. Why teach a student on 10 year old equipment when they are going to be trying to buy "newer" equipment when they finish the courses? After all this is a sport of ADULTS I think {sometime I wonder} I believe in safety. I also believe it is pushed to the point no one is learning anything. You have to push yourself and the envelope sometimes to see how far you can go and what there is to learn. I'm not saying everyone should do this. It's what has worked for me. Now I've also seen some students and even skydivers that have 100's of jumps I do not think need to be in the sport.

Sorry for the rant this is all only my .02

My New Website with 24hr Chat


skreamer

Dec 13, 2001, 8:04 AM
Post #15 of 93 (4330 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I was a natural at skydiving and canopy control. I've only got 37 jumps so far.
LMFAO




Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 13, 2001, 8:18 AM
Post #16 of 93 (4326 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

ALright skreamer, let me clarify. I was a very fast student. I am in no way saying I know everything at all. What I was saying was that the skills needed to keep myself and everyone around me safe came naturaly.

My New Website with 24hr Chat


jfields  (C 33595)

Dec 13, 2001, 8:29 AM
Post #17 of 93 (4322 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
skills needed to keep myself and everyone around me safe came naturaly.
Who has a broken collarbone? Shocked

Justin
My Homepage


Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 13, 2001, 8:32 AM
Post #18 of 93 (4316 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Who has a broken collarbone?
"Beer Light" Accident nothing to do with canopy control or flight. Laugh

My New Website with 24hr Chat


jfields  (C 33595)

Dec 13, 2001, 8:47 AM
Post #19 of 93 (4309 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"Beer Light" Accident nothing to do with canopy control or flight.
They both have to do with impacting the ground, which gave you some difficulty. Wink

Justin
My Homepage


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 9:30 AM
Post #20 of 93 (4292 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Nope.

Canopies are wings and we can change the angle of attack in several ways.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 13, 2001, 9:40 AM
Post #21 of 93 (4285 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Quade. intersting spin man.

I am not a CFI. and I only have 11 hours, but your cessna analogy doesn't quite work with a parachute. What we fly is more like a B-2 bomber than a 152. We have no tail. Ya we can change angle of attack, and we can change the chord, but what we can't do is add thrust. There is no slow flight mode on our canopies Really, a parachute only has lift, drag and weight. We pretty much can only use weight to increase speed, which on a parachute, results in greater lift :). But you knew that.



Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 9:45 AM
Post #22 of 93 (4281 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Guess what? I wasn't going to mention it, but it's SPECIFICALLY Bryan Burke's book (leaflet?) that I'm refering to.

There are SEVERAL points upon which he is -entirely- wrong.

The most basic of which is airspeed equals lift.

Now lemme explain a couple of things. Some of the folks on the professional swoop circuit -may- be a wonderful canopy pilots. They -may- have an amazing instictual understanding of what can be done with toggles, risers and shifting body weight.

These people I liken to birds. Yes, they can fly, but they probably -shouldn't- be writing texts on aerodynamics.

Wanna read something a little more precise and -way- more accurate?

Try THIS.

Specifically . . . Airfoils and Airflow


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 9:52 AM
Post #23 of 93 (4272 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

A wing is a wing. You fly the wing.

No slow flight mode? Really? How do YOU land?

The ONLY thing that differs in the analogies is that with a parachute you can't add energy into the system. You start out with some potential energy, convert it to some kinetic energy and manage that energy with changes in angle of attack. Same as a glider. Other than that . . . a wing is a wing.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 9:58 AM
Post #24 of 93 (4265 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you decrease the angle of attack, you'll increase the lift.

Thats why when you land, you apply brakes, hence reducing the effective angle of attack of the canopy, creating the same lift with less and less speed.

I think we're all splitting hairs here....

Remi
Muff 914
This is almost EXACTLY wrong. Unbelievable!

So much for the concept of basics being covered while still on student status!


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 13, 2001, 10:04 AM
Post #25 of 93 (4262 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

It's raining, so what the heck

I mean slow flight mode in the cessna sense. Where you hang on the power of the prop. That is what you where talking about when you mentioned flying at 42 knots.

And ya, we cant add thrust, but that is a huge difference.

No, the extra speed doesn't really change the angle of attack, if you look at that term correctly. At full flight, the wing is trimmed for a certain speed. It will always seek that speed, same as a cessna. As you increase the speed with the dive, the wing, trimmed for a certain speed, seeks that speed, so the extra speed is burned off in lift that carries you back up, or out of the dive arc, until it reaches it's trimmed flying speed.

A wing is a wing, and aerodynamics are some pretty rigid laws, But we don't have an engine, or tail.



freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 13, 2001, 10:08 AM
Post #26 of 93 (2366 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

ah, you are right on that one. Remi does have it wrong, but that is completely 'believable' don't attack him over it. They don't teach that stuff to skydivers. There really isn't much need too. There is a need for a private pilot to know it though.

j



Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 10:20 AM
Post #27 of 93 (2361 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What I was saying was that the skills needed to keep myself and everyone around me safe came naturaly.
Not to generate a flare war or anything here, but are other jumpers saying this or are your JM's? There is a huge difference between these 2 crowds. JM's are really only worried about the 2 minutes that you are in the air after they land. Their primary purpose is to get you to the ground with out having you break something. Other jumpers are sharing the same airspace as you and are WAY more concerned about your flying skills then JM's are after you graduate.

I've been cut off on final by way more JM's then anyone else. Most JM's are so worried about beating the entire crowd down to talk to their student on Radio that they don't pay enough attention to the others in the area and end up cutting most of them off. So while JM's are great at most things, there are some things that even they need to practice what they preach.

Other jumpers on the other hand are much more likely to be willing to say something to you if you are'nt doing something right. Being in the air with a total of only 3 other jumpers is'nt really that big of a deal. Now if you open in the middle of 20 others and screw up a bit on the flying, the margin of error is way less. I've talked to a few jumpers this year alone who thought they were doing everything right, but after looking at video, they were shown to be cutting other jumpers off, making s turns too late in the pattern or causeing a ton of other problems. Did they realize they were doing this? Nope.... it was'nt till I got cut off I decided to tape from the ground to show this person thier mistakes.

Part of the problem with learning on non-student wingloadings 1:1 is that is instills a sence of false confidence. "If my JM's trust me at this loading at 2 or 3 jumps, then I can progress to a higher one with out any issue." I've seen it happen at another DZ (I've never been to a DZ in TX), and within 2 years most jumpers at this DZ are being encouraged to be at 1.5 wing loadings on Stiletto catergory canopies. Are the jumpers really ready for it? Not really but since everyone else they started with is doing it, they do it too.

Whats the solution? I like the idea of starting on ZP canopys , but feel students need to keep the at the student loading level of .5-.8:1. Sure there is no proformance, but lots of room for error is left. After 30-40 jumps and if the Jumper does well enough under canopy, then 1:1-1.15:1 for another 50 . Remember all you should be really learning here is still how to land, how to land where you want to and how the canopy does in stuff like crosswinds and downwind. at less then 75 jumps survial should be the #1 priority not impressive landings. After 150 jumps..... You should know what you to do in the future and should seek out help to do what you wish to accomplish.

Phree
Canopy Nazi #2 and looking for Canopy coaching.....
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique


Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 13, 2001, 10:32 AM
Post #28 of 93 (2355 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe I'm not like everyone else. I'm out to have fun. Not have impressive landings. The point is students can be taught how to fly something with a wing load of over 1.1... I was.. It's only smart to teach a student to jump on the equipment they are going to be buying and using in the future!


Well after level 4 I was taken off radio. I also have seen what you say about JM's flying in fast so they can get their students in safely. I still dissagree with some of your points others make sense. I wasn't flaming I was just stating my opinion. BTW Others have told me I'm a safe canopy pilot. The thing I was getting at was the issue over wing loading for students. They should be at least 1.1.1 I'm not trying to swoop a canpoy. I don't even want to downsize. I'm happy flying my 170 with a WL of 1.2 with soft stand up landings. I jump from an Otter so at anygiven time there is usually 23 people in the air at one time. I'm also a Sit-Flyer so I tend to get down alittle faster. I've flown around our RW teams and see people making mistakes all the time. We are human after all.

My New Website with 24hr Chat


(This post was edited by Slappie on Dec 13, 2001, 10:36 AM)


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 11:47 AM
Post #29 of 93 (2335 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
ah, you are right on that one. Remi does have it wrong, but that is completely 'believable' don't attack him over it. They don't teach that stuff to skydivers. There really isn't much need too. There is a need for a private pilot to know it though.

j
If I'm attacking anyone, it's Remi's JM for not giving Remi a correct understanding of how he's flying.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 12:02 PM
Post #30 of 93 (2328 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quade, while I do agree with you on the points you make about newbies, I want to point out one thing. Addressing the comment you made about "Airspeed equals lift", they were right, the more airspeed the more lift. If a canopy has no airspeed, the canopy has no lift. While I do agree with you that we do not need to teach newbies high speed landings before they learn other skills, we shouldn't teach them false info.

William
That phrase, "Airspeed equals lift" besides being mostly wrong, gives the newbies the idea that in order to make "good" landings, they have to increase the speed of their canopy.

I'll go so far as to say that any speed during landing above the canopy's best glide speed is wasted kinetic energy.

Now, this may be "fun" but it has nothing to do with a soft or accurate landing.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


FallingMarc  (B 25542)

Dec 13, 2001, 12:20 PM
Post #31 of 93 (2321 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Training students on the type of equipment they will be buying is one thing... but you don't need a Ferrari to learn to drive. Sure people can be taught on a wing loading over 1:1, but the margin of error is reduced. I haven't even been in the sport for a year, and I've seen students ignore the radio, not flare, bury a toggle at 30 feet, etc... We use ZP 290 Skymasters for students. The guy that turned low would not have walked away from his landing if he had been under a smaller sport canopy. Luckily for him, he had a lighter wingloading, and did decide to listen to the radio quickly enough to brush himself off and get nothing worse than a long lecture about low turns and target fixation. Some people need that margin of error before they learn the way to fly safely.

I went from the student gear(loaded at something like .5:1) to a Triathlon at 1.1:1 at jump 35. I've put almost 50 jumps on it since then, and it still seems like a lot of canopy for me. I can't see myself downsizing anytime soon. I want to learn to swoop eventually, but not for a long time. I just don't see how it's safe to put brand spankin new canopy pilots under something that takes quicker thinking and reactions, until they are comfortable and safe flying something more forgiving.

Marc



Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 12:28 PM
Post #32 of 93 (2314 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

                       
***Canopy Nazi rant here****

Can students be taught at higher wingloadings? Sure... Its really easy to teach them because any thing that they do is going to provide immediate responce. Same thing why flying an elliptical canopy comes so easy. But while its the easiest to teach, is it the safest? At a higher loading the canopy feels like its part of you.
I should be able to take any first time jumper out and put them under a Sabre 120 loaded at 1.5:1 and have them land it fine. But when you look at the sheer number of first and second jump number's compaired to the number of AFF or any programs gratuate rate, the arguement is lost. Why provide a canopy that extremly easy to get hurt under without enough experience to jumpers that probally won't make it worth teaching the finer points of canopy control? Now if you are getting canopy control after graduation then you are picking up the finer point and are ahead of the curve.

Lets say this is the same as cars... Did you start out driving on a Corvette or a Station wagon? Sure the Corvette is fun to drive and its easy to get it to do what you want it to do... but how much did you learn about driving? The car did most the work and one wrong move usully ends with a trip to the ER or worse. Under a station wagon, it might not be what you are going to buy once you get your licence, but you could learn your lessons in some what saftey since it was'nt going 120 the moment you touched the gas.

Comments from everyone are welcome here.......

Phree
Canopy Nazi #2.....


At a 1.2 loading on a Sabre 170 you are at PD's limit for Expert jumpers. Do you really consider your self to be an Expert jumper at 37 jumps?

I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique


mgaillar  (B 25118)

Dec 13, 2001, 12:46 PM
Post #33 of 93 (2300 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Bernoulli's Principle:
Daniel Bernoulli, an eighteenth-century Swiss scientist, discovered that as the velocity of a fluid increases, its pressure decreases. How and why does this work, and what does it have to do with aircraft in flight?
Bernoulli's principle applies to any fluid, and since air is a fluid, it applies to air. The camber of an airfoil causes an increase in the velocity of the air passing over the airfoil. This results in a decrease in the pressure in the stream of air moving over the airfoil. This decrease in pressure on the top of the airfoil causes lift.

Hmmmm.


http://www.skydiveorange.com


scottbre  (A License)

Dec 13, 2001, 12:52 PM
Post #34 of 93 (2297 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

My opinion on this probably has little if any merit, since I only currently have 17 jumps, but I tend to agree with PhreeZone. I did my first 12 jumps on the huge manta 290's and then bought a used rig with a raider 220. I only notice a slight difference between the two in handling and landing (my wingloading is .85:1), but I think it would have been stupid of me to have gotten a canopy that was any smaller. I have had all stand up landing except for my last one, where I flared about 10 feet too high. As soon as I realized this, i let up on the toggles which of course gave me a big downward boost of speed, at which point I immediately buried the toggles. It evened out fine, but about 2 feet lower than I would have liked, giving me a nice soft, but rather swift slide landing on my butt. Had I had a smaller canopy, it wouldn't have been as gentle with me, and I probably wouldn't have been able to get that second flare all the way down before hitting the ground. All that said, I think every student is going to have at least a few of those embarrassing landings, and as long as you aren't overloading your canopy for your experience level, those occurrences will just be embarrassing and not painful as well.

Finally the station wagon/ferrari analogy is a good one. Sure you can learn to drive a ferrari first, but you will be learning the driving process backwards. You will be learning all the nuances of driving a high performance car, which will invariably take your concentration away from the basics of just driving, which you will still have to eventually learn, possibly at a much higher price.


"Can't keep my mind from the circling sky. Tongue-tied & twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I."


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 1:27 PM
Post #35 of 93 (2279 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Bernoulli's Principle:
Daniel Bernoulli, an eighteenth-century Swiss scientist, discovered that as the velocity of a fluid increases, its pressure decreases. How and why does this work, and what does it have to do with aircraft in flight?
Bernoulli's principle applies to any fluid, and since air is a fluid, it applies to air. The camber of an airfoil causes an increase in the velocity of the air passing over the airfoil. This results in a decrease in the pressure in the stream of air moving over the airfoil. This decrease in pressure on the top of the airfoil causes lift.

Hmmmm.
Well, that's a fairly simple model of what takes place and one that is commonly given to students, however, it's not entirely correct.

Please see; THIS.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


FallingMarc  (B 25542)

Dec 13, 2001, 1:31 PM
Post #36 of 93 (2273 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sure you can learn to drive a ferrari first, but you will be learning the driving process backwards. You will be learning all the nuances of driving a high performance car, which will invariably take your concentration away from the basics of just driving, which you will still have to eventually learn, possibly at a much higher price.
Excellently put... it doesn't matter if you want to have fun with your canopy, or see it only as a means of getting to the ground safely. If you're ignoring the basics of survival in order to have fun, you're dangerous. Learn to walk before you run... and learn to land slowly, hit accuracy, crosswind, traffic, etc., before you swoop and spiral into the pattern...

Marc



freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 13, 2001, 2:04 PM
Post #37 of 93 (2253 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you're ignoring the basics of survival in order to have fun, you're dangerous. Learn to walk before you run... and learn to land slowly, hit accuracy, crosswind, traffic, etc., before you swoop and spiral into the pattern...
I like the way you guys think.

It is true that you all probably could land some cross braced rocket loaded at 2.5. It would probably scare the hell out of you, but if you had too, you could do it. But would it be a good idea. No. People think that because they can land a highly loaded canopy safely a couple times, they can jump it on a regular basis. What about when you have to land out? That guy killed himself a month or two ago, landing out, and makeing a low turn. That is why I completely agree with the above quote.

So I agree too, teaching a student on a loading of 1.2 on a zp is proabably not a good idea. The margin for error increases as the loading goes up.

There is always time to be a great canopy pilot, later, but only if you are alive later.




prost  (D 24959)

Dec 13, 2001, 5:22 PM
Post #38 of 93 (2212 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess al of my professors in fluid dynamics and all the other courses I took didn't know crap and you are the authority. Let me restate it...."If all other things are kept a constant, the more forward speed the more lift a wing will have." Yes you can do other things that increase lift. Why do you think it takes more power to fly the plane at extreme slower speeds? If a wing has no forward speed it has no lift no matter what kind of wing you have. I agree that we should not teach newbies that more forward speed will solve there landing problems. Don't teach subjects you don't really know about.

William



Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 5:37 PM
Post #39 of 93 (2207 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Don't teach subjects you don't really know about.
Ya know, the FAA approved my texts on the subject -- I must know something!

Look, the ENTIRE point of my argument is that the statement "airspeed equals lift" is just about as accurate as the statement "peanut butter equals sandwich". Yes, if you add more peanut butter you'll have a bigger sandwich, but without the bread ya got a LOT of goo on your hands. ;^)

That is to say, yes, airspeed is -a- factor in the lift formula but is NOT the entire story.

Try this one . . . "lift equals one half rho V squared." If you took courses in aerodynamics, that phrase should have come up at least once or twice.

In other words, you MUST also take into consideration the density of the air and the coefficient of lift of the wing at it's current angle of attack.

Hey, I've posted at least a couple of times some references to other texts that support my views on this. It's not just me.


Paul Quade

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


mnischalke  (D 26290)

Dec 13, 2001, 5:44 PM
Post #40 of 93 (2200 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

So you are telling me that my instructor was full of shit and that my canopy is not suspended by magic?

mike



landmissle  (A 37727)

Dec 13, 2001, 6:01 PM
Post #41 of 93 (2193 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

  Hmmm. Perhaps you should read the post in "Skydiving Talk Back", "DZ.com Community".
What we have here is the ejeculate splatters of mental masterbation. Come on folks, keep it cordial. Do you really think that you're impressing newbies that may be coming here solicting advice. More importantly, do you think there're likely to post a question (let alone, offer a differing opinion) if they have to fear reprisal from the obviously superior intellects that inhabit this forum? It not only affects newbies, but other folks that have well founded advice but, lack the egotistical fortitude of others, clearly demostrated here, are also less likey to contribute.
Feel free to tell me to take a flying leap since I'm not a moderator. I'd love to take your advice anyways, since most of flying leaps are restriced to weekends and Caravans.
Just thought I'd throw out a cautionary note. I really don't want to abandon this forum but, if it devolves into "is to", "is not", 'is to", "is not", well I can better allocate my remaining life-span into other arenas.
Let's lighten up. I really think this can be an awesome forum chock full juicy ted-bits. Whata' say?


Feet up, heads down, blue skies,

Landmissle




Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 13, 2001, 8:03 PM
Post #42 of 93 (2165 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Landmissle --

Maybe it was the food poisoning I had yesterday that REALLY got to me and started this whole bad vibe thing, I don't know.

That said, I really haven't been trying to start a flame war or anything. All I'd wanted to do is to defend my position that something that is being said as the "truth" by a lot of people is simply incorrect (or at the very least a completely incomplete answer).

What's facinating to me is that this "truth" has been parroted by so many people without them even thinking about what it would really mean.

It's amazing to me, that my simple statement that this "truth" was incorrect brought such a violent and automatic reaction from so many people. It's almost as if I told a bunch of kids that there was no Santa Clause.

Well, of course there's a Santa Clause . . . somebody told me so.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


skymedic  (C 33561)

Dec 13, 2001, 10:48 PM
Post #43 of 93 (2140 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I am with you on this one paul...

Marc
Res Firma Mitescere Nescite


AggieDave  (D License)

Dec 14, 2001, 12:15 AM
Post #44 of 93 (2129 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
that there was no Santa Clause
Santa's NOT real? *runs from room crying*

(Sorry, I know that wasn't at all constructive or even on topic, but its late and I thought we needed some humor here...Smile)

AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.


RemiAndKaren  (C 2328)

Dec 14, 2001, 12:20 AM
Post #45 of 93 (2130 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Damm.. I hate this time zone thingy....
In reply to:
If I'm attacking anyone, it's Remi's JM for not giving Remi a correct understanding of how he's flying
No sweat..

I had this image in mind when I posted: on a canopy, the angle is, for exemple, 10 deg from the horizontal going down. When I said decreased the angle of attack, I ment to bring it to 5 from horizontal going down.

You're right, if we use a ref of positive going up, then my term decrease would be wrong, as the canopy would go from -10 to -5, wich is an increase. I was thinking in absolute numbers, sorry for the confusion.

Obviously, its been a while since I did maths, so let me talk in dumb words Wink the less the canopy points down, or the more it points up, the more lift it has... right?

Remi
Muff 914


RemiAndKaren  (C 2328)

Dec 14, 2001, 1:21 AM
Post #46 of 93 (2119 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Gee.. I really dont know what I'm talking about, do I !

Sorry folks, on top of things, I confused angle of attack with angle of incidence..... evn if the canopy is -10 deg from the horizon, it probably has a positive angle of attack to the relative wind....

It is true, as skydivers we tend to simplify things.....

Remi
Muff 914


BenW  (C License)

Dec 14, 2001, 2:29 AM
Post #47 of 93 (2113 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Remi,

Isn't the angle of attack equal to the angle of dangle?

Anyway, you can't talk about canopy swooping and flight; You're the one who thinks he should deploy his reserve at 13,000ft whilst doing an RW exit! Laugh

B



RemiAndKaren  (C 2328)

Dec 14, 2001, 2:45 AM
Post #48 of 93 (2111 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I never deployed my reserve at 13K... It was the plane that did it, and it was 14K... Tongue

Remi
Muff 914


BenW  (C License)

Dec 14, 2001, 2:54 AM
Post #49 of 93 (2110 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Ner ner ne ner ner... Smile



skycat  (D 25740)

Dec 14, 2001, 8:39 AM
Post #50 of 93 (2073 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok I'm not trying to start this all over, but I think asking questions by newbies is a good thing. Currently I'm getting canopy coaching and in the last few weeks I've learned so many things I never would have thought about. I was landing fine under my canopy, but my coach said my technique was wrong. What I was doing was going to get me into trouble when I do downsize to higher wingloadings. By changing my technique on how I flare, when I flare, and what my body is doing while I flare, I actually get very nice "swoopy" landing on strait in approches. I'm not even using my front risers.

I mean how many newbies have actually hit the accuracy target? I hear alot of well I can do it if I have to it, or well the landing area is so huge why should I have to. After watching probably some of the best swoopers around doing stuff that to me was amazing, I was told that 99% of it is accuracy, being at point X at Y altitude, and if you aren't there, abort and find an alternate.

There is a lot a young jumper can learn to make them a better pilot, and it is good that they ask questions, the more questions the better. The thing is figuring out what is crap and what is worth learning and trying.

Kelli



skreamer

Dec 14, 2001, 9:27 AM
Post #51 of 93 (1806 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There is always time to be a great canopy pilot, later, but only if you are alive later.
I agree with this sentiment 100% - very well put. Why the big hurry to down-size?



skreamer

Dec 14, 2001, 9:32 AM
Post #52 of 93 (1805 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

That's a pretty expensive way to practice solo CReW, dude! Wink



freeflir29  (D 10000000)

Dec 14, 2001, 10:13 AM
Post #53 of 93 (1793 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

"lift equals one half rho V squared."

This doesn't even have a space in the equation to add the mass of the coconut. How are you ever going to figure out the velocity of both kinds of swallows accurately without being able to factor the damn coconut?????? Dammitt.......What is the world coming to??????? Smile

"and I'm not easily impressed...Ooohh look...a blue car!" -Homer Simpson


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 14, 2001, 10:48 AM
Post #54 of 93 (1775 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This doesn't even have a space in the equation to add the mass of the coconut.
The mass of the coconut doesn't enter in to it except that if lift > weight of coconuts then it'll fly and actually gain some altitude. ;^)


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


mnischalke  (D 26290)

Dec 14, 2001, 10:53 AM
Post #55 of 93 (1773 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

yes clay,

but if you get a flat in the desert, how many pancakes does it take to jack up the house?

I say it's blue because ice cream has no bones.

Your mother was a hampster...

mike



flyhi  (D License)

Dec 14, 2001, 10:58 AM
Post #56 of 93 (1771 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
lift equals one half rho V squared
I thought 1/2 rho V Squared was actually the formula for dynamic pressure, e.g. the pressure created when you put your hand out of the car window and vary your speed? (Ask a bicylcist the difference he feels between 12 mph and 24. It is a factor of 4, not 2.)

If you do an analysis of the units of this, the result says that 1/2 rho V ^2 is actually a force per unit area, such as pounds per square foot, rather than just a force like lift.

flyhiCool


weid14  (D 20292)

Dec 14, 2001, 11:39 AM
Post #57 of 93 (1757 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

because chicks dig scars!! Smile



Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 14, 2001, 11:47 AM
Post #58 of 93 (1754 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I thought 1/2 rho V Squared was actually the formula for dynamic pressure . . .
It is! Actually, it's useful for several things but you said it yourself . . .

In reply to:
. . . such as pounds per square foot . . .
Which is exactly what wing loading is.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


ramon  (D 26115)

Dec 14, 2001, 1:03 PM
Post #59 of 93 (1728 views)
Shortcut
Name of the forum is swooping and canopy control [In reply to] Can't Post

There is a safety and training section fro people that need to learn safety Smile.

Many jumpers asking questions here probably do not need to be attempting swoop style landings, however spreading knowledge safely (from experienced people like chuck and alan) is probably better than having people experiment.

jump high pull low surf long!!!!
ramon



freeflir29  (D 10000000)

Dec 14, 2001, 1:37 PM
Post #60 of 93 (1718 views)
Shortcut
Re: Name of the forum is swooping and canopy control [In reply to] Can't Post

"probably better than having people experiment"

Definately, I'm only in one piece due to sheer luck!!!! Doing 360 hooks at less than 100 jumps is not adviseable!!!! I'll never do that again unless there is water underneath me!!!!!

"and I'm not easily impressed...Ooohh look...a blue car!" -Homer Simpson


Spectrejumper  (D 23312)

Dec 14, 2001, 5:10 PM
Post #61 of 93 (1693 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Kelli wrote:
>I mean how many newbies have actually hit the accuracy target? I hear alot of well I can do it if I have to it, or well the landing area is so huge why should I have to. After watching probably some of the best swoopers around doing stuff that to me was amazing, I was told that 99% of it is accuracy, being at point X at Y altitude, and if you aren't there, abort and find an alternate.<

If you have a USPA license, you've at least been close to the target. Or you falsified your license applications. I commend you for getting some canopy coaching. Although in your post you say your landings were fine, I clearly recall a thread where you talked about how bad your landings were. Then you talked about how you downsized, got some coaching, and had good landings. The point of my little rant here is not to beat you up (you seem like a pretty heads up jumper), but to lead to a question. Do you think your landings got better because you increased your wingloading, or because you got coaching and started paying a lot more attention to your technique? I tend to think it's the latter. I also think it's why jumpers should spend more time on lightly loaded canopies that are forgiving of poor technique. A poorly executed flare or low turn on a lightly loaded canopy will get you dirty, and maybe cause some discomfort. The same maneuver on a highly loaded canopy will break or kill you.



Mike D-23312
"It's such a shame to spend your time away like this...existing." JMH


Jimbo  (D License)

Dec 14, 2001, 5:33 PM
Post #62 of 93 (1686 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Or you falsified your license applications.
As if that never happens. How many jumpers dragged out the measuring tape to be sure that they 'made' their accuracy landings? How many jumpers consider landing on the DZ an accuracy landing. Finally - how many JMs and S&TAs actually verify the information in log books before signing off on a license requirement/exam?

Lots of things that should happen don't. Lots of jumpers can not reliably put a canopy within 10 ft of a designated target, much less on top of it.

-
Jim



Spectrejumper  (D 23312)

Dec 14, 2001, 6:16 PM
Post #63 of 93 (1680 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As if that never happens. How many jumpers dragged out the measuring tape to be sure that they 'made' their accuracy landings? How many jumpers consider landing on the DZ an accuracy landing. Finally - how many JMs and S&TAs actually verify the information in log books before signing off on a license requirement/exam?

Lots of things that should happen don't. Lots of jumpers can not reliably put a canopy within 10 ft of a designated target, much less on top of it.
All of that is true. I just wonder why people bother lying. I like to think that at least the A license accuracy requirements are somewhat enforced. Fraudulently obtaining a license is a disservice to skydiving. The licenses are meant to indicate a level of competence, they aren't just badges of honor. Demos or boogies or even certain landing areas at some DZs have license requirements because you actually need the skills those licenses certify to safely participate.


Mike D-23312
"It's such a shame to spend your time away like this...existing." JMH


skyhawk

Dec 14, 2001, 7:43 PM
Post #64 of 93 (1673 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

indicate a level of competence

i agree and is also a safty thing there is a eason that you cant do certain things till you have certain licenses

Someone said about this being a flame war while i wasnt paying much attention to the lift stuff it seems to me that while most everyone is stiken to there guns ppl are learning which is the point of this forum also if a newbee read it even if they took the "wrong" answer as correct a. it doesnt really matter to there safty its more theoretical b.they have alot of information about it.

about the landing on target and the i can if i have to. Well i can if i have to however i choose not to 1. we have alot of students. A few new jumpers think that they have right of way constantly and always try and get as close as possible to the first 2 crosses (we have 3) i have seen a few new jumpers hurt themselves doing low turns to get the cross. 2 the good/better ppl also land in front near the crosses therfor it is usually busy. So yer when i want /to have to i can get the cross but i choose to land further out and walk back than get carried back on a strecher after trying to get the cross

Click Me


Michele  (B 26874)

Dec 14, 2001, 7:54 PM
Post #65 of 93 (1667 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

What concerns me is that I haven't understood most of what you all said. Granted, I have never been good at word problems, and not the best mathemetician in the bunch, but I got lost somewhere, and never could pick it up again.

I sit here, with 25 jumps, vaguely suspicious that this information is really important to me, but I can't get a handle on it.

That's what concerns me.

Ciels-
Michele

"What of the dreams that never die? Turn to your left at the end of the sky".
~e e cummings~


skyhawk

Dec 14, 2001, 7:59 PM
Post #66 of 93 (1665 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Michele prob best to ask spec questions about what you dont understand im sure they will be more than happy to explain

Click Me


mnischalke  (D 26290)

Dec 14, 2001, 8:03 PM
Post #67 of 93 (1665 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

who ever said the target had to be the peas (crosses or whatever)? I thought that was the way it was and called myself out on a bunch of my student jumps. Truth is I was generally right on. Usually at about 3k, I would look at how busy the peas were already. At that point, I would adjust my target if needed to find a nice clean spot of grass, while maintaining the pattern. Our landing area is a bunch of different shades of green, so I would pick one spot and land there. I never did really count any of those and toward the end, was merging into the pattern and heading for the peas for score. I wish I would have known then that my 3k agl adjusted targets were okay to count.

Just a thought,
mike



skyhawk

Dec 14, 2001, 8:25 PM
Post #68 of 93 (1659 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

yes i agree putting yourself where u want is one thing but landing at a prediterman d place before a jump is another

Click Me


weid14  (D 20292)

Dec 14, 2001, 8:29 PM
Post #69 of 93 (1658 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

yeah, well, you're supposed to be spotting for yourself on those accuracy jumps as well... unless you're learning at a cessna DZ, have you even learned to spot?



Jimbo  (D License)

Dec 14, 2001, 8:51 PM
Post #70 of 93 (1653 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
about the landing on target and the i can if i have to. Well i can if i have to however i choose not to 1. we have alot of students. A few new jumpers think that they have right of way constantly and always try and get as close as possible to the first 2 crosses (we have 3) i have seen a few new jumpers hurt themselves doing low turns to get the cross. 2 the good/better ppl also land in front near the crosses therfor it is usually busy. So yer when i want /to have to i can get the cross but i choose to land further out and walk back than get carried back on a strecher after trying to get the cross
It's already been mentioned, but I think it's important enough to hear again. The target doesn't have to be the big pretty student magnet pea gravel pit. It could be anything, and as long as you've committed to landing there (before the jump, not when you're 10 feet off the ground) then that should count as an accuracy landing.

As an exercise try this: Before you board the plane pick 2 distinct targets in the landing area, a primary and a secondary or 'out'. Unless the primary is too crowded or maybe on fire, land there. If you can't make the primary due to obstacles then land in the secondary. If you can't make either one consistently then you've got problems with accuracy. If you do have problems with accuracy, then work on it! It's an important skill and I really think that most of us (myself included) need to be a little better at accuracy landings.

-
Jim



mnischalke  (D 26290)

Dec 14, 2001, 10:15 PM
Post #71 of 93 (1649 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

We jump an Otter and I started hanging out in the door around jump four and I started really spotting around jump nine. I think I spot well, thank you for asking.

My adjusted targets were within a 25- to 30-yard radius of the center of the peas.

Peace,
mike





skyhawk

Dec 14, 2001, 10:44 PM
Post #72 of 93 (1645 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

should reiterate i can get the preset target very easily i was just saying that i dont chose to land on the target

Click Me


freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 15, 2001, 12:37 AM
Post #73 of 93 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Huh?



skycat  (D 25740)

Dec 15, 2001, 1:13 AM
Post #74 of 93 (1639 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Then you talked about how you downsized, got some coaching, and had good landings. Do you think your landings got better because you increased your wingloading, or because you got coaching and started paying a lot more attention to your technique?
1st, you are not beating me up. I did have some less than beautiful landings especially as a student, I mean I only made it back to the DZ maybe 3 times, and when you have a pilot chute over the nose 4 times in a row, and almost every landing you had to do looking behind you cause you are backing up, yeah you are going to have some bad landings, and have ALOT of canopy fear. I used to HATE being under canopy, I used to sit in the plane dredding the end of the skydive. On top of it the gymnastics that made me able to PLF like I was born doing it (saved my butt on those pilot chutes over the nose) also left me with a really bad knee that I still to this day I will protect from the force of a landing by sitting down, actually it's more squating, to prevent it from being injured in anyway. btw...I don't care what anyone says .4-.5 wingloading is not good for anyone..I didn't learn anything other than point the canopy toward the DZ when you are open and pray you make it back...on the other hand I'm GREAT at picking outs and PLFing.

When I downsized to the canopy I currently have I've had good landings from jump one. I had 50 jumps on it before I started getting coaching, but I've always been asking questions, I'm not "heads up" I'm anal and a perfectionist. Also because I'm a perfectionist, if I don't do something perfect I think it was bad, like when I hadn't jumped a bootie suit in ages and slipped in the mud at the end of my landing cause I didn't have my normal traction. You have no idea how mad I was at myself. Frown

Also I 100% agree with you that with the wrong technicque like I had when I first started jumping my crossfire would have hurt me when I downsize, I had a definately saber flare that I just kind of adapted to the crossfire. I knew it was wrong, so that is why I chose to get coaching, cuase I don't want to get hurt, actually it's cause the smoother I am and the better I get the less stress that is put apon my knee.





Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

Dec 15, 2001, 7:18 AM
Post #75 of 93 (1622 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

ShockedWow! I am gone one week and come back to find this thread; whacky. Anyway, the my simple answer to the original question by Paul is "no." I am not bothered at all that people are asking. I find it much better than people now have a forum in which to gain canopy control-specific information. I will be happy to answer ANY question on the subject. You know, you are correct in saying that there are plenty of things other than swoop landings. While it's true that I devote a great majority of my time fine-tuning my technique, I can still stomp a disk, do CRW, and speak on basic and intermediate canopy control. I am sure that more sooner than later we will have people piping in with those "less aggressive" questions.

Sincerely,

C.W. Blue II
<><>swoop lord and general man about town.

My webpage HERE


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Dec 15, 2001, 8:19 AM
Post #76 of 93 (1580 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

As CN#1 you'd think I would be all over this thread.... I agree with Chuck, this is a good forum and the questions are gonna be from all over the place.

Swooping is the way many/most jumpers want to land. Educating jumpers, especially novice jumpers, in the safest swoop landing techniques might keep someone alive, therefore imho it is worthwhile.

Re: student wingloading. I'm all for putting capable, well trained students on zp canopies loaded at 1.0:1-ish, but I feel that 1.2:1 on a first jumper is excessive, just as .4-.5:1 is way too light. There's no way to predict how a first jumper is going to perform under canopy. I've seen students do great in the FJC then blank out under canopy and forget to flare, ending their first jumps with broken ankles even on big F111 canopies.

I think a first jumper on a 1.2 wingloading is being put at a substantially higher amount of risk than the first jumper on a .8 wingloading. What bothers me about that is that the first jumper at 1.2 doesn't know about the increased risk he's being put under. And personally, I wouldn't want to share the airspace with that first jumper at 1.2, again because there's no way to predict what he's going to do.

pull and flare,
lisa


Zennie

Dec 15, 2001, 11:15 AM
Post #77 of 93 (1570 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think a first jumper on a 1.2 wingloading is being put at a substantially higher amount of risk than the first jumper on a .8 wingloading.
Absolutely agree. People may be misunderstanding what "the Houston Contingent" was driving at. I'll just give my experience as an example of something that I think is a good compromise. I weigh about 185-190 out the door. My first jump was on a Sabre 190. After about 5 jumps on that I started easing myself into a Sabre 170. Did the 170 for about 20-ish jumps after that and started easing myself into a Sabre 150, which was what people (instructors & experienced jumpers) were recommending I buy. I've put around 150 jumps on the 150 and I'm now demoing 135s and have pretty much settled on a Cobalt (though I have yet to demo a Crossfire or Stiletto). So my "wingloading progression" as it were was:

1-5: ~1.0
6-20: ~1.1
20-175: ~1.26

I won't have my new canopy for probably a few months, so my guess is I won't be flying 1.4 until around the 250-275 jump mark.

This still may be considered going too fast by some folks, but I have yet to make a downsize decision without discussing it at length with several high-number jumpers first.

My point is, however, I don't think anybody here would advocate a 1.2 wingloading for the first time jumper. The question becomes whether it maybe appropriate for a low-timer. Again it depends on the person. Some pilots probably shouldn't, others, it's OK.

The big thing is talking and listening to experienced canopy pilots who are familiar with your flying. If they aren't ask them to watch a few of your aproaches & landings.

"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."


Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 16, 2001, 12:37 PM
Post #78 of 93 (1527 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Here here, thanks Zennie... You said what I've been trying to say Smile I feel so DuH! now Laugh

My New Website with 24hr Chat


AggieDave  (D License)

Dec 16, 2001, 8:46 PM
Post #79 of 93 (1490 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

So I just had some brake lines sewn onto a drogue-chute, will that work? I'm about 240lbs out the door...

Laugh

AggieDave '02
-------------
Blue Skies and Gig'em Ags!
BTHO t.u.


Slappie  (A 123)

Dec 17, 2001, 12:14 PM
Post #80 of 93 (1435 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

AggieDave only if I can video it!!

My New Website with 24hr Chat


Spectrejumper  (D 23312)

Dec 17, 2001, 6:11 PM
Post #81 of 93 (1402 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This still may be considered going too fast by some folks, but I have yet to make a downsize decision without discussing it at length with several high-number jumpers first.

My point is, however, I don't think anybody here would advocate a 1.2 wingloading for the first time jumper. The question becomes whether it maybe appropriate for a low-timer. Again it depends on the person. Some pilots probably shouldn't, others, it's OK.

The big thing is talking and listening to experienced canopy pilots who are familiar with your flying. If they aren't ask them to watch a few of your aproaches & landings.
That's a great plan, if all your landings are going to be on the DZ in good conditions. The problems start when you get into one of those "oh shit" situations. There have been at least two fatalities this year where low time jumpers made poor decisions on off DZ landings. Jump numbers are no guarantee, but more experience might have lessened the pucker factor and helped these guys make better decisions.
I don't want to come off as some kind of ultra-conservative safety nazi, in this or any of my other posts. I just hate reading about fellow jumpers getting injured or killed. I think somebody else said this recently, but it bears repeating: you've got your whole life to have fun jumping smaller canopies, as long as you don't break or kill yourself by going too small too fast.




Mike D-23312
"It's such a shame to spend your time away like this...existing." JMH


cloud9  (D 27635)

Dec 17, 2001, 11:32 PM
Post #82 of 93 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In answer to the first question, (No not at all) I think that's what this is all about inexperienced asking advice from the experienced. What could be better?



watcher  (D 24876)

Dec 18, 2001, 11:39 AM
Post #83 of 93 (1339 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

<took a long time to read a whole thread>

Id like to think that there really cannont be a general rule, the S&TA should be looking to see if people are exceeding thier skill level and offering good invidual advice on a case by case basis if time is available, (s)he is there to provide a safer enviroment for everyone.
That said:
1-3 Manta 280
4: Safire 269
5: Safire 219
6: Safire 209
7: Safire 209
8/9: Safire 189
4 jumps on club gear Fury 200s (yuck dont like 7 cell F111)
14 - 120: Pro 170
5 jumps on a Nitro 150
15 jumps on a Nitro 135 including a downwind landing on a night jump (they positioned the cars in the wrong direction)
20 Jumps on a Nitro 120 or Stiletto 120, ordered the Nitro

My exit weight is 180-195 its variable based on how much i eat that week at school.

Now would i recommend this progression to any of my Friends hell no. Why? cause they did not jump 10 jumps every single weekend for 5 months straight. They dont read everything on canopy flight, they havent read Brian Germains manual, which i have to say is very amazing and quite informative. They dont spend hours talking with the guys that are swooping talking about approach patterns, altitudes, progressions. And they still dont feel the canopy, they keep thinking there is this set way to flare the canopy to land it instead of flying the canopy till it stops.

My conclusion is that jump numbers dont account for much, you can have a person with 60 jumps and an hour of tunnel time easily outfly a person with 600 jumps (RW stuff, makeing a point about jump number not landing here), when i had 100 jumps i was giving landing advice to people that had 400 jumps cause they still were not landing right, cause noone bothered to tell them what they told me. Currency, current skill and how much your putting into learning something should be the primary attribute on what your landing.

But hey thats just my take on it.

Jonathan



sldiveout  (D 23892)

Dec 18, 2001, 12:27 PM
Post #84 of 93 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Well,

You didn't mention how many jumps you had when you bought that 120. I also think jump numbers don't account for much but let's face it- It's a good place to start.

Many of my friends are what I would call "natural fliers" they have outstanding canopy skills and pick up on things quickly. The key is to STUDY- and be humble about your skills. No one on the planet wants to know about how good a canopy pilot you are. You learn by watching, listening and reading (of course jumping & being current).

The bottom line is this -THE GROUND DOES NOT CARE HOW MANY JUMPS YOU HAVE, OR HOW GOOD YOUR LAST SWOOP WAS. If you taunt the earth by making violent or hook turns toward it -it will maim or kill you. The earth is unforgiving, that's why we invented the swoop pond (Well, OK it's fun and it looks way cool) But ponds -especially larger ones- allow people to try things they would never try over solid, hard earth.

I like what you said about S&TA's. At Mollala (Skydive Oregon) you have be cleared through observation to land in the high-performance area, so no boneheads just show up and start hooking it into the pond.

Also, all of the studying and careful practice and currency in the world cannot prevent accidental injury due to a simple, momentary lapse in judgment or miscalculation (low turns). Making approaches smoothly will make it easier for people flare for their lives if they have to. However, even people with thousands of jumps die each year from low turns on small elipticals. Many more break legs -and not because they are hotshots or uncurrent or not qualified for their canopies, just because they made one mistake -ONE. Sucks huh?

-Dan



hookit  (D 24838)

Dec 18, 2001, 1:08 PM
Post #85 of 93 (1320 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

<quoting Quade>
Hmmm, let's slow down a little more.

We'll pull back the throttle a bit more and then (this is something most students don't understand) we'll have to add power to go even slower -while we maintain altitude-. Again, we'll maintain altitude by changing the angle of attack of the wing.

We're NOW going about 42 knots. We're still maintaining altitude and we're still in complete control of the aircraft. It just happens to be set up the same way it would be if we were flairing out for a landing.

Quick -- about how much lift is being created by the wing?
</quoting Quade>

Wow. Thanks for the the visual. It's a great description/explanation of why the saying 'airspeed equals lift' is not strictly true for aircraft.

In the last part of the example however, where you're having to add power to maintain altitude at the slower airspeed you're offsetting some of the plane's weight with the thrust of the prop therefore the wings are no longer generating lift equal to the force of weight (or gravity...whatever).

Let's carry that a bit further. What if I'm in an F15 and I go vertical? The wings are now generating 0 lift (if lift is defined as opposing weight) but I'm still flying.

Anyway, I guess my main point is that the analogy doesn't carry over too well from aircraft to canopies in that we don't have horizontal stabilizers or elevators on canopies therefore we don't have the same control over our angle of attack as an aircraft. We also don't have engines...(yet!).

Perhaps a better demonstration of why airspeed doesn't always equal lift on a canopy would be when a canopy pilot is in a hard dive following a front riser turn and is now hanging on double fronts and accelerating rapidly toward the ground. While airspeed is increasing dramatically, lift is not. Perhaps 'Airspeed equals Lift' should be modified to say 'Airspeed equals Lift Available'. By increasing airspeed in the dive I now have at my disposal tons more lift which will eventually (hopefully!) get used when I flatten out and get a beautifully long, smooth swoop!

Thanks for the input. It's been very thought-provoking and educational!

-Trey



TheMarshMan1  (C 40097)

Dec 18, 2001, 1:36 PM
Post #86 of 93 (1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

"What if I'm in an F15 and I go vertical?"

No offense, and feel free to correct me if you think I'm out of line, but I think thats carrying it a bit too far. The aerodynamics of a fighter jet and the aerodynamics of a cessna are two different things. Obviously, theres no way you can compare the aerodynamics of a canopy to an F-15, but you CAN somewhat compare them to the wing of a Cessna, like Paul has.

"if lift is defined as opposing weight"

yes, that is how lift is defined, however weight always acts "straight down". Meaning, no matter what the angle of the wing, the weight is not perpendicular to it, but rather perpendicular to the ground i guess you'd say. That said, if an F-15 was climbing vertically, the wings WOULD be producing lift. What the hell else would produce lift? Not the engines, they produce THRUST, remember?.

Anyways, I think this is going off on so big of a tangent that its getting rather confusing. As a pilot and ground instructor (soon to be CFI), I completely agree with what Paul has said. Lets not get too far off topic.

Just my $.02
-Marshall



freeflyguy  (D 24207)

Dec 18, 2001, 2:35 PM
Post #87 of 93 (1300 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I should leave this alone. But what the hell, I am going hunting and won't be around the rest of the week anyway.

Trey, I can't promise to be right, but you are thinking the way I am in the first part of your post.

But think of these things too.
The wings of an F-15 are still generating lift when it is going straight up, It is just the lift is pulling 90 degrees from the line of flight. As always, but that wouldn't be a help in a vertical climb, so in order to keep it pointed straight up, you need something to counter it. Elevator.

Also the regular model of Drag, Lift, Thrust, and weight is stll there, but screwed up. Weight and drag are pointed straight down, Thrust is pointed straight up, and lift, ahh. Pointed somewhere, but not really needed, except to say as a component of thrust. But it turns the thing into a rocket, not really a plane.

This too, Angle of incidence is the angle the wings are conected to the fuselage of an aircraft, you can't change that unless you are flying a VTOL Osprey, but then you would just crash. Anyway. It is fixed on a cessna. It is on a parachute too, by line trim. But when you are in double fronts, in a dive, you are not allowing the parachute to fly at it's normal trim, or angle of incidence. You are forceing a change in it. That is why it keeps diving. Let it back up, and it will seek the airspeed that it is trimmed to fly at. Until it gets slowed down to that airspeed, it will give you more lift. That is why it pulls itself out of it's dive. This is true even on a high loaded canopy. It is just they may take 500 feet or more to pull out on their own. You can turn too high.

One other thing regarding engines. Have you ever seen those scary contraptions where they do connect a parachute to an engine, either a back mounted or trike? I am pretty sure they only have three or four controls. Two toggles, a throttle and wheel brake. Guess how you go up?, add power, guess how you come down? Yep. decrease power. I believe on those they also claim you can't stall them.

I just thought I would be a blowhard and beat the poor horse some more.

J.



Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 18, 2001, 4:44 PM
Post #88 of 93 (1279 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the last part of the example however, where you're having to add power to maintain altitude at the slower airspeed you're offsetting some of the plane's weight with the thrust of the prop therefore the wings are no longer generating lift equal to the force of weight (or gravity...whatever).
Well, actually . . . (how long an explanation should I give 'me -this- time?) . . .

The major thing the prop is doing is providing power. It's usually not (and especially not in the example I used) providing any significant amount of upward thrust.

If I wanted to do the math for you (are you sure you really want to go there?) . . .

No, the reason you must add more power in the slow flight configuration is that you'd like to be able to -maintain- that attitude for more than a second or two. Otherwise, you'd slow down further and stall.

In reply to:
Let's carry that a bit further. What if I'm in an F15 and I go vertical? The wings are now generating 0 lift (if lift is defined as opposing weight) but I'm still flying.
Actually, the wings are still creating as much lift as they would at that same angle of attack, density of atmosphere and airspeed during horizontal flight.

If you point the nose of an F-15 90 degrees up, then you actually are slewing across the sky quite a bit. If you want to travel exactly straight up staying exactly over the same GPS coordinate, then you must take into account the angle of incidence of the wing and the lift it will generate.

In reply to:
Anyway, I guess my main point is that the analogy doesn't carry over too well from aircraft to canopies in that we don't have horizontal stabilizers or elevators on canopies therefore we don't have the same control over our angle of attack as an aircraft. We also don't have engines...(yet!).
Ram-air canopies have an enormous amount of control over angle of attack. Every time you pull on your rear risers you're changing your angle of attack and camber of the wing as well. Every time you pull on your front risers you're changing your angle of attack and camber of the wing as well. Every time you pull on your toggles you're changing your angle of attack and camber of the wing as well.

Engines are only useful for putting energy into the system. Other than that, they make no difference whatsoever in how a wing flys.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 18, 2001, 5:03 PM
Post #89 of 93 (1276 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The aerodynamics of a fighter jet and the aerodynamics of a cessna are two different things.
Actually, until you get up into the supersonic range, the aerodynamics are almost exactly the same. What's different is the amount of power you can play with.

In reply to:
Obviously, theres no way you can compare the aerodynamics of a canopy to an F-15, but you CAN somewhat compare them to the wing of a Cessna, like Paul has.
A comparison to an F-15 is still valid -- especially when it comes to landings. How often have you seen an F-15 perform a split-s to land? Wouldn't that make a nifty comparison to a high performance canopy doing a hook turn? ;^) I've got video of an F-18 performing a square loop wherein he stalls it out on corner #4 and continues right into the dirt. Fortunately, the pilot lived. Damn, they make them planes sturdy.

In reply to:
"if lift is defined as opposing weight"

yes, that is how lift is defined, however . . .
Careful. Don't ever let them put words into your mouth. I think you know that's not how lift is defined, but you've opened yourself up -- don't trip.

In reply to:
(soon to be CFI)
Cool! Somebody I can talk to! Let me know when you've taken your check-ride and we'll swap horror stories! Mine's a doozy.


Paul

http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Dec 18, 2001, 5:11 PM
Post #90 of 93 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I believe on those they also claim you can't stall them.
Yep -- and ya can't spin an Ercoupe (yes, you can) and ya can't stall an airplane with a canard (yes, you can) and you can't . . . the list goes on and on.



http://futurecam.com/skydive.html


ramon  (D 26115)

Dec 18, 2001, 6:19 PM
Post #91 of 93 (1264 views)
Shortcut
it is a look at me sport [In reply to] Can't Post

that is why RW and FF teams have to watch their videos so many times. the first few each team member is too concerned with what they are doing to pay attention to the team as a whole.Laugh...look at me.

ramon



watcher  (D 24876)

Dec 20, 2001, 1:19 PM
Post #92 of 93 (1167 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You didn't mention how many jumps you had when you bought that 120.
160.

In reply to:
but let's face it- It's a good place to start.
Good place to start i agree as long as you look at all the other variables and just dont write someone off cause they dont have 500 jumps or assume that a person with 1000 jumps knows how to land a high performance canopy. I was just trying to get a more interactive (between the Canopy instructors and yourself) of judgeing current skill level and what is ok and not ok to fly.

In reply to:
However, even people with thousands of jumps die each year from low turns on small elipticals. Many more break legs -and not because they are hotshots or uncurrent or not qualified for their canopies, just because they made one mistake -ONE. Sucks huh?
I agree it does suck alot, and i think if your going to do this you need to be acutely aware of the risk you are taking for enjoyment. And as you said the ground knows no difference in a 1 jump AFF student and a 5000 jump swoop specialist it hurts either way if you screw up. Always understand the true power of that small piece of coated cloth above your head can do to you if you dont stay focused and make good desiscions and know when to not make that last hook turn when you might be alittle low.

Jonathan



alan  (D 17868)

Dec 20, 2001, 4:03 PM
Post #93 of 93 (1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: Does it concern anyone that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm gonna jump in here kinda late, but with all of the discussion on wing loading, I haven't seen any mention of density altitude. I hope this doesn't make this too technical but I think it is important to note that a 1.2 wing loading on a 72 degree day at 750' msl with 30% relative humidity will be considerably different than on a 92 degree day at 1500' msl with an 80% relative humidity. Jump in the Denver area and that fairly conservative 1.2 becomes a pretty aggressive wing loading.

alan



Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Swooping and Canopy Control

 


Search for (options)