Sep 18, 2006, 6:02 AM
Post #3 of 120
(5226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I come haulin ass in on a set 360! A crossed braced 285...hmmmm....AWESOME!!! A great way to introduce students to skydiving and POND SWOOPING on their first jump! They are probably going on the basis that a crossed brace is a nice rigid and stable wing??? I love it!!!
Sep 18, 2006, 9:43 AM
Post #14 of 120
(5030 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I don't, first time a student drops their feet in an attempt to stand up early, it will be a bad day for us both.
Why is this being developed? I just don't see a particular purpose for it, but I am new to tandems with only 1000 in the last 7 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree with matthewcline. A 285 might work for tandems in a place - like Guam - with consistently strong winds and tiny Japanese students. However, I worry about no-wind days, when a student digs a heal in to try and stop the slide.
2,000 tandems ago, a student did that with me, we just roared over her ankle, breaking it! One broken student is enough for me!
Been there, done that, got that T-shirt, learned my lesson - the hard way!
Sep 18, 2006, 2:15 PM
Post #17 of 120
(4869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I agree it looks photoshopped. If you zoom in around the people, they are blurry. This is a good job though if it is truly photoshopped. ANotherthing to notice is that the TI's shoulders are above the 3 rings, outside the harness. I also don't see a harness for the student, but it could be just out of frame.
Another thing to question is the agressive turn that low on a tandem, can anyone say Cypres??
ANother is the fact that the harness connection points are non existant. From what I see around the DZ, they connect just below the 3 rings and I don't see them on the photo.
Sep 18, 2006, 2:27 PM
Post #19 of 120
(4852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Regular risers look small under large canopies. 285 is big enough to make the look happen. The T-I is holding 2 sets of toggles in his left hand and he is 10+ stories up buy the look of the constrcution in the back ground.
But I still am not a fan of a "swoop" canopy being used for tandems.
Sep 18, 2006, 3:45 PM
Post #20 of 120
(4810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [quinny] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I come haulin ass in on a set 360! A crossed braced 285...hmmmm....AWESOME!!! A great way to introduce students to skydiving and POND SWOOPING on their first jump! They are probably going on the basis that a crossed brace is a nice rigid and stable wing??? I love it!!!
NICE rigid and stable wing...
Remember that the FIRST Cross-Braced Canopies were PD Excaliburs in what, the late 80's...?
I had at least one in almost every size they made, went through 3-4 of the 260 sqft ones over the course of 10 years of Pro Demo jumping. See this...
I'm 240 pounds without gear, and add another 100 plus pounds of misc. gear, flags, banners, pyro...and the 260 was loaded about the same as a tandem 285 would be.
Those 260's were the best demonstration canopies I've ever found, IMHO. Enough speed to get ya back, and the stability to sink in and stand up even loaded over 1:1...IN A STADIUM!
All the Excalibur's were, was a cross braced 9 cell, it flew, opened and packed like a big 9 cell canopy except it was STRONGER and didn't buffet much in deep brakes because the airfoil was somewhat more ridged.
And as far as 'size'...I'd love to see a cross braced 285, many of the first tandem canopies were f-111 325's...
Just because it's 'cross braced' doesn't mean it's a swooper only platform!
Sep 18, 2006, 6:33 PM
Post #21 of 120
(4751 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If you look at the TM's left 3 ring (bottom right of the photo) you'll see the hook from the student harness.
If you are wondering why manufacturers are moving toward eliptical, smaller canopies, here's some food for thought.
We have several tandem canopies on our DZ, most are rectangular but some are eliptical. The rectangular planform has a very high toggle pressure when manoevering. After a day of doing 8 or more tandems, my arms really start to ache. With the ellipticals, the toggle pressure is very light allowing for lots of strength reserves for the flare.
Also with smaller tandem canopies (we have a 396 and a 350 Firebolt) the flare is easier to achieve. For a shorter TM, a smaller canopy will have a shorter stroke to the flare. With my long arms, I just scratch the bottom end on the 396. If I had shorter arms, a 350 would be a must.
A friend of mine took a 230lbs student with his 298 Firebolt. At his height, I don't believe that the landing would have been as good with a 396.
I don't think that smaller tandem canopies are there for ground hungry front riser swoops with students, there are being designed with lighter toggle pressure and more usable control range in mind. And that's not to mention how easy it is on the packers. The difference between packing a 396 vs. a 350 is night and day.
Sep 18, 2006, 10:01 PM
Post #23 of 120
(4678 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Crossbraced tandem canopy?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Pink elephants. Its a good idea only for very experienced instructors with a great skill level for both flying and malfunctions, the pink elephant will be the loading on the risers when they have their first spinning malfunction, its killed many people who couldn't cut away, then you have the rsl, don't where it on tandems myself, I won't, I've had 23 mals, 15 of those tandem mals, and man alive, you can come off spinning and tumbling on a violent one, I've had the reserve pilot chute hit my foot before I made the choice to not use the rsl, I want to be stable before deploying the reserve. High performance canopies mean high performance mals, there opening up an area of liability, we already have enough of these out there
Picture077b.jpg
1
