Gaining weight and changing wing loadings.

[RPetrie 0]

Question and comment to all,
I have a blackjack 240 that now has about 40 jumps on it to date from this past October. When I originally bought the canopy my wing loading was around .76 and was recommended by Marty. Since I have bought it, I have gained weight and my wing loading in now around .83-.84. I jump all objects with all different kinds of landing areas on a fairly regular basis. I was just wandering if anyone thought this wing loading to be inherently "dangerous" or bad for tight landing areas. I am aware of the obvious disadvantages to a higher wing loading in tight landing areas, I just happen to be one poor ass college student with no money. So whether I like it or not, I'm going to have to live with it regardless. Furthermore, I was wandering if there is anyone out there who prefers a slightly higher wing loading such as this one, or if there are any other advantages to it other than penetration, wide open landing areas, etc. As soon as I can afford it, I will be buying another rig that’s the same as this one just with a slightly larger canopy, and before I experience it, I was wandering if there is really that big of difference b/t a .7-.75 wing loading and a .83-.85 wing loading. Am I really going to notice a significant difference in the canopy when sinking or in deep brakes? Is there really going to be a noticeable difference while landing? I have only gone down on a hand full of jumps, all of which had nothing to due with the canopy or conditions, just pilot error. So all in all I am completely happy with the canopy, just curious if having a 240 and a 260 or 280 is going to make it difficult to go back and forth, especially one right after the other. I know this post was long and winded on a pretty boring subject, but I would appreciate as much feedback as possible.
-P.S a buddy of mine started a thread a couple weeks back about rollovers with a high wing loading (.92) off of low objects and nobody really replied to the post, and if they did they just bull shitted with other jumpers. So PLEASE!!! Go back and help him with some info.
I barely have a hundred jumps and the person who wrote the post I just spoke of has half that.
We, as low time jumpers, rely on and respect the jumpers with the more seasoned and professional opinions, experience, and advice. This forum however, is becoming more and more of a bitching match between the people we go to for help. This in turn is hurting the people who genuinely come here for good, solid advice. And this in the long run is hurting us, and the entire community. If you read a post and have good advice or any advice at all please give it. If you don't, simply don't respond.
All I’m trying to say is if you have time to help someone out by replying to their post whether it interests you or not, or if you have replied to an almost identical post before, please do for it is greatly appreciated!
BK

[914 0]

I dont think that a .83 wingloading is "inherently dangerous" ... just pay attantion to how your canopy behaves and dont jump anything unless you know you can stick it. IF you are worried about hard landings, then wear good gear be ready to pound in.

Flare the canopy.

You and your buddy should not have too high of expectations from these forums. Talk to your manufacturers, they are very helpful, Talk to your friends that jump, video each other. Try to spend a bunch of time under your canopy by sky diving or hill soaring or jumping easy objects, anything at all.

you got it bro

[davelepka 4]

Dear Ryan,

You'll always be beautiful to me, no matter how much you weigh. Don't let those other guys get you down, they're just being superficial and immature. Your beauty comes from within.

On the other hand, if you would stop blowing your money on pie, you wouldn't be having this problem.

Dave

[TVPB 0]

Excellent piece of advice.

Coming from a fellow fat bastard, lose weight. That will fix your wing loading!!!!

Being a student, you should not have enough money for food anyway. Hence your weight should NOT be a problem. You should be spending it on other vice's!!!!!

Seriously - a higher loading means that your flaring performance has to be better and more efficient to get the same result. You will have a little more speed for a given brake configuration. This can translate to the requirement of more runway (larger landing area), etc.. Gotta go.

Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck

The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide.

[divnswoop 0]

Dear Ryan,

I agree with Mr. Lepka...(scary huh!) No matter how much weight you put on, you will always be my happy little monk...person. It makes me smile to read such a muture, intelligent post from you. I've watched you grow up before my very eyes....

I don't think the extra pounds will be too bad.....but if you go to a .86 wingloading your probably going to die......

[TomAiello 25]

I've jumped canopies with wingloadings up to about .87.

In my experience, you will land faster, and perhaps a bit harder. The thing to watch out for has generally been the additional forward speed at landing, more than the downward speed.

Be aware that this also translates into a higher stall speed for the canopy, so that you will have less ability to sink into tight areas because the canopy will stall earlier in the control stroke--meaning that you will have to maintain a flatter glide to make the wing fly.

In general, my strategy with overloaded canopies is to fly straight in approaches at full flight, and flare hard. I usually look for a "runway" type landing area so that I don't have to stress so much about overshooting and hitting something while moving fairly fast.

Quote

...if there is anyone out there who prefers a slightly higher wing loading such as this one, or if there are any other advantages to it other than penetration, wide open landing areas, etc.

I've seen some people who like higher wingloadings for swoop approaches. Personally, I'm not a fan, but there you go. Higher wingloadings will also probably open marginally faster (all else being equal), and may will give you better penetration in wind.

According to Brian Germaine's article (see the front page of DZ.com) on turbulence, the higher wingloading (hence faster speed) also ought to give you more resistance to turbulence, but I'm not sure how well this applies to a BASE type canopy. My personal experience with large F-111 7 cells has been opposite of Brian's advice (but note that he's generally talking about very different canopies). I tend to think that BASE canopies are made to ride out minor turbulence (and resultant "partial collapses") fairly well because of their large size and quick re-inflation. With that in mind, I'd rather have a larger canopy for turbulent conditions, but I definitely recommend reading Brian's article and trying to come to your own conclusions.

Quote

I was wandering if there is really that big of difference b/t a .7-.75 wing loading and a .83-.85 wing loading.

In my experience, yes there is. And the main difference is in what kind of landing areas you can routinely take.

Quote

Am I really going to notice a significant difference in the canopy when sinking or in deep brakes?

I think so. But also note that the type of canopy probably makes a greater difference than a middle range variation in wingloading, so if you change to a different model of canopy, that might change things, too.

Quote

Is there really going to be a noticeable difference while landing?

I definitely notice the difference.

Quote

...just curious if having a 240 and a 260 or 280 is going to make it difficult to go back and forth, especially one right after the other.

Not really. I've regularly done back to back loads on a 240 and 290, and although I can tell the difference, and make allowances for it, it's not too difficult to deal with.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

Am I really going to notice a significant difference in the canopy when sinking or in deep brakes?

I can't say since I've never flown any sizes other than 260s.

However, just this Sunday I was forced to land from a near stall without any opportunity to flare (I was about to overshoot a tiny landing area and hit some power-lines). Having your toggles at hip-level all the way from 200 feet till touchdown is not recommended on high wingloadings. I'm pretty sure the combination of solid boots and a light wingloading saved my legs from snapping on that particular landing.

So be very careful what landing areas you pick, and more importantly do not underestimate the lure of a great object with a less-than-ideal landing area.

Ask yourself; am I really going to pass up on a great jump with my friends because my wingloading might be a tad too high for that particular landing area? Fact of the matter is; the temptation to 'take your chances' just that one time might result in a broken femur or worse.

[TVPB 0]

Quote

According to Brian Germaine's article (see the front page of DZ.com) on turbulence, the higher wingloading (hence faster speed) also ought to give you more resistance to turbulence, but I'm not sure how well this applies to a BASE type canopy. My personal experience with large F-111 7 cells has been opposite of Brian's advice (but note that he's generally talking about very different canopies). I tend to think that BASE canopies are made to ride out minor turbulence (and resultant "partial collapses") fairly well because of their large size and quick re-inflation. With that in mind, I'd rather have a larger canopy for turbulent conditions, but I definitely recommend reading Brian's article and trying to come to your own conclusions.

The resistance to turbulence thing is a function of the pressurisation of a canopy. The more pressurised a canopy, the less likely that it will be affected by variations in air pressure (turbulence is a function of pressure and relative motion of air particles).

Hence a higher wing loading will tend to pressurise a canopy better simply because air is being "rammed" into the nose of the canopy (hence ram air canopy ) faster than a canopy at lower wing loading. Cross braced and locked canopies handle turbulence better because the air flow out of the canopy is more restricted than a standard open nosed canopy.

Now, why do some people think that turbulence is worse on higher loaded canopies? It is probably because a smaller canopy or highly loaded canopy tends to be more responsive to changes in its flying characteristics.

A 3 inch input on a VX69 will produce much more dramatic results than a 3 inch input on a Fox285. Similarly, if 1 metre cubed of air is knocked out of a smaller canopy, it will have a greater affect than if the same volume is knocked out of a big canopy. But the point is, there is much more chance that air will be displaced from an underloaded canopy as there is less force keeping it pressurised in the first place.

And this brings me to my conclusion. I think it is much better to be a fat BASE jumper because you will get faster landings and you can jump in higher winds as the turbulence will affect you less. I have developed my physique over many years for just this reason. My natural body shape is that of an elite body building athlete, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices in life to achieve elite performance!!!!!!

Just don't jump in shitty, tight arse, low, flat, countries like Australia!!!!!

Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck

The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide.

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

According to Brian Germaine's article (see the front page of DZ.com) on turbulence, the higher wingloading (hence faster speed) also ought to give you more resistance to turbulence, but I'm not sure how well this applies to a BASE type canopy. My personal experience with large F-111 7 cells has been opposite of Brian's advice (but note that he's generally talking about very different canopies). I tend to think that BASE canopies are made to ride out minor turbulence (and resultant "partial collapses") fairly well because of their large size and quick re-inflation. With that in mind, I'd rather have a larger canopy for turbulent conditions, but I definitely recommend reading Brian's article and trying to come to your own conclusions

That I don't quite agree.

A canopy regardless its design obeys to the same laws as any other canopy.

Higher WL = less susceptibility to turbulence all other things being equal.

Also higher WL and also smaller canopiy = faster inflation.

Maggot is now jumping a Mojo 190 @ .84. That think opens faster and cleaner than any other canopy I've seen including vents/valves ones.

Said that, I would not recommend the "average" BASE jumper to go down to such a WL.

However, if you got 5000+ jumps, can do stand-up landings on a dime with ANY canopy that can get thrown at you at almost any "landable" WL, then a bit higher WL might give you an "edge".

Just my 0.02.

PS
Talking about the crazy Maggot, last night he finally got his B and qualified for his BASE #!

Memento Audere Semper

903

[flynskydive 0]

Just ease up on the BK value meals a bit and you'll be good. But Jesus made you just the way you are for a reason, and he thinks you are beautiful as do the rest of us.

USPA Strong T-I, AFF-I, Coach, Videographer/photographer.