Jumping a low WL HP canopy

[Elisha 1]

Just curious as to what it is like - pro/con.

The impression I've so far is (besides it possibly being dangerous): What's the point? Jump something more to your ability/WL preference.

I think others have asked this as well (or similar).

For example, before I owned my current Sabre 150, I jumped a Nitron 170 that I rented at a boogie while in the 30-40 jump number range. I think I stood up 3 out of 4 of my landings and didn't think much of the canopy except that it was "nice". Was told later than it was more of a HP canopy that a Sabre/Spectre. My WL on a 170 is only around .9 though.

[FrogNog 1]

I'm considering doing this - jumping a high-performance canopy shape at a low wingloading - because I have started to like light wingloadings for neutral flight speed and final landing speed, but i want a canopy that can be made to dive more / fly with front risers more.

The wingloading I expect to try out some higher-performance canopies at is 1.0 to 1.15 pounds per square foot. I will of course not go under the manufacturer absolute minimum weight for a canopy. But barring violating absolute minimum weight, I also am curious what the dangers could be of light loading.

I reckon the primary danger I'm looking at is not wingloading, it's the shape of the canopy - the more responsive any canopy, the more skill and training it takes to fly it safely. And all the control inputs and outputs will change drastically compared to tamer shapes.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[Superman32 0]

Woudn't you get a lot more of the canopy if you were to get a sabre, pilot or whatever at a higher WL, than a HP canopy that has to little of a WL to perform as it is intended?

Inveniam Viam aut Faciam
I'm back biatches!

[skycat 0]

But the glide ratios are very different and the opening characteristics also. I have 200 jumps on a crossfire1 at 1.2-1.3 and about 10 on a crossfire2 at 1.3. I don't do high performance landings but the landing characteristics of an ellipitcal were what I wanted. I wanted something that planed out on the flare, fast turns, responsive input, and soft openings. I got all of that with my crossfire.

So while you will not win any swoop competitions with an elliptical that is loaded lighter you can still get the benifits that you are looking for.

I probably should add the canopy was 104 sq ft with a loading of 1.2-1.3, so that does making it a bit more exciting than a 170 at 1.2-1.3.

Fly it like you stole it!

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

But the glide ratios are very different and the opening characteristics also.

The glide ratio should not be different, although the descent rate will be lower at the lower loading (all else equal). The slower descent will allow the use of the winds aloft for a longer period of time, allowing a tailwind to be more beneficial to the more lightly loaded canopy.

For Great Deals on Gear

[skycat 0]

I was talking about a square vs an elliptical at the same WL. It's been awhile since I've jumped into these debates cause they are such a waste of energy. Especially since the mis-information got out that you have to load an elliptical heavy in order to fly one. Which is BS since women have been flying lighter loaded ellipticals for years.

Trust me my crossfire at the same WL had a much flatter glide than my Sabre.

Fly it like you stole it!

[GravityGirl 0]

Frog Nog. Give me a 5 item wish list of what you would like in a canopy.

So far I get neutral flight speed. (Define that)
Final landing speed. (I assume you don't want increased speed on landing)
Responsive turns.
Low front riser pressure.

Is this the start of your wish list?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[ciechan 0]

from Contrail (Cobalt) manual:

Calculate the wing loading now for the Contrail canopy you intend to jump.
If this figure is below 1.4 lbs/ft², the parachute will be relatively docile and easy to land. It will also have reduced penetration into the wind and reduced inflation pressure in the entire canopy. The profile will not be as rigid as it should be. A figure below 1.4 lbs/ft² is as dangerous as a figure above 2.3 lbs/ft²!

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

from Contrail (Cobalt) manual:

Calculate the wing loading now for the Contrail canopy you intend to jump.
If this figure is below 1.4 lbs/ft², the parachute will be relatively docile and easy to land. It will also have reduced penetration into the wind and reduced inflation pressure in the entire canopy. The profile will not be as rigid as it should be. A figure below 1.4 lbs/ft² is as dangerous as a figure above 2.3 lbs/ft²!

Will it be docile or dangerous at a wingloading of 1.4 lbs per square foot? The manufacturer says both, in the same paragraph.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I'm considering doing this - jumping a high-performance canopy shape at a low wingloading - because I have started to like light wingloadings for neutral flight speed and final landing speed, but i want a canopy that can be made to dive more / fly with front risers more.

The wingloading I expect to try out some higher-performance canopies at is 1.0 to 1.15 pounds per square foot. I will of course not go under the manufacturer absolute minimum weight for a canopy. But barring violating absolute minimum weight, I also am curious what the dangers could be of light loading.

I reckon the primary danger I'm looking at is not wingloading, it's the shape of the canopy - the more responsive any canopy, the more skill and training it takes to fly it safely. And all the control inputs and outputs will change drastically compared to tamer shapes.

This is why it is important to not confuse low wingloading with low experiance. Even relatively lightly loaded HP canopies can be fun and responsive. Not as much as high WL, but certainly more than Low WL squares and even many higher WL squares.

illegible usually

[cobaltdan 0]

the contrail is subcontract manufactured for performance variable is is not the same as a cobalt designed and manufactured by atair.

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[Nullified 0]

Quote

the contrail is subcontract manufactured for performance variable is is not the same as a cobalt designed and manufactured by atair.

OK, but what is your opinion regarding the statement?? Is there validity or not?

Stay safe,
Mike

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

[b1jercat 0]

I went from a saber2 190 to a flight concepts rage 185 loaded at 1.3ish, In my case the difference between the two canopys was very noticeable.
Pros- fast turning, diveing, fun to fly canopy
steep glide.
Cons- low turn will eat your lunch, long or negative recovery arc.
I didnt really want to down size, but I did want a quicker platform, I got it.

blues

Jerry

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Frog Nog. Give me a 5 item wish list of what you would like in a canopy.

So far I get neutral flight speed. (Define that)
Final landing speed. (I assume you don't want increased speed on landing)
Responsive turns.
Low front riser pressure.

Is this the start of your wish list?

This is basically it.

By "same neutral flight speed" I mean when I fly a Hornet 190, it goes X airspeed. If I fly a Hornet 150, it goes faster. I expect if I fly e.g. a Stilleto 150 it will go faster than a Stilleto 190, and as a starting point I would guess the Stilleto 190's regular flight speed would be in the ballpark of the Hornet 190's regular flight speed - I certainly guess the Stilleto 190's speed will be closer to the Hornet 190's speed than would be the Stilleto 150's speed. Obviously there will be a difference because the wing is more efficient, it's not exactly the same square footage, and it's trimmed different, but my main point is I don't want to fly an e.g. Stilleto 150 on the advice of people saying "you have to load it to get performance; if you don't want to load it, don't bother getting an elliptical", and my main reasoning is I want a canopy that doesn't rocket down to earth when I'm not yanking on the strings. (I like my thinking time.)

I don't know if I want light front riser pressure. I can put a lot of strength on a front riser and if I don't have enough, I can build more. But I do want a canopy that, when I bring in a front riser, can do some serious turning / diving without bucking madly. (Preferably without bucking at all.) And I don't want to have to solve the bucking by lengthening the brake lines to the point I can't get a full flare. (It is my opinion that Hornets will never do great front riser turns for people of regular arm length because of this brake line issue. My Sabre2 experience has been similar but not as bad.)

Final landing speed is basically stall speed while landing. I like standing or walking on medium wind landings and running (not sprinting) only on no wind landings. At higher windloadings, landing stall speed increases.

I think a longer recovery arc would be good too, and perhaps more important than responsive turns (which I take to mean precise and snappy). I have been happy with the responsivity of turns on my Hornet 190; I have felt how downsizing increased responsivity by comparing with Sabre2 170, sabre2 150, and Hornet 150, and I accept that at low wingloading and with longer lines, I will have some amount of turn start/end "mush" issue and maximum turn rate. No problem as long as it turns more responsively than a Triathlon. I think a longer recovery arc means a canopy that has more of an "affinity" for flying above its "neutral speed" once it has been pointed at the ground, vs. the Hornet and Sabre2 which try with all their might to return to neutral speed immediately after I let up the front riser. (I swear the canopy is trying madly to return to neutral speed _while I'm still holding the riser_, which is why it bucks. It's skeered of going too fast. )

Basically I think I want something that will fly well deep in front risers (i.e. not bucking) when I want it to, will flare and land well with a slow ending (i.e. brake lines not lengthened to where I have to pull the toggles with my toes), and doesn't have a huge forward speed increase (such as if I just downsized a couple sizes). I was actually impressed with an Original Sabre 190 I demoed - the toggle turns were a bit rough but the front-riser flight and flare were great. The subterminal openings were beating me to a pulp, though.

Because higher-performance canopies don't seem to be found (or even made) in large sizes as much, I lost 30 pounds (from almost 200 down to 170) to do my part in this equation*. I think I can go another 10, to get me to 1.26 lbs/sf on a 150 or 1.11 lbs/sf on a 170.

I was going to try and start finding large (~170 sf) ellipticals to demo and see what I liked. It was my understanding that higher-performance canopies tended to have shorter toggle strokes so lengthening their lines didn't necessitate gorilla-arm flares, and had varying recover arcs.

(* OK, that's not the only reason I lost weight. But it is an important side effect. The other reason was my ass was starting to look too big.)

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Frog Nog. Give me a 5 item wish list of what you would like in a canopy.

So far I get neutral flight speed. (Define that)
Final landing speed. (I assume you don't want increased speed on landing)
Responsive turns.
Low front riser pressure.

Is this the start of your wish list?

Now the short answer:
1. will fly somewhat slowly in the pattern if I want it to, avoiding the "napkin-missile" effect as much as possible.
2. don't need to be Olympic sprinter / land-skier to land in no wind.
3. flies smooth with a lot of single or double front riser input. Smooth means no bucking, and more input = more turning and/or diving.
4. turns more smoothly than a triathlon of similar size.
5. doesn't open like a SabreCracker.

I am prepared to feel stupid if this is basically _most_ higher-performance canopies at 1.1 to 1.4 lbs/sf.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[marks 0]

you just described a safire 1 "with the flare mod" 149.

you will get all those out of it.

and i know where a good one is for sale if you want to jump it.

and no it isnt mine so im not just saying this to sell it.

[mattjw916 2]

ditto... I also own a Safire 189 (the "real" size is 175) with Derek's "flare mod" and it is a very, very good canopy (with the mod). I could also be persuaded to part ways with mine if you wanted something in the same size range although I had planned on keeping it for emergencies.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[ncfitzge 0]

What mod you guys talking about?

#148 Sonic Scrat
"Have you ever kissed a rabbit between the eyes?" Woodpecker pulling out his pants pockets to the waitress

[marks 0]

from the way i understand it, the inner most cascade of the 4 on the brake line is shortened some. so in turn it flare's with more of the wing.

[mattjw916 2]

I thought 2 were longer and one was shorter IIRC... PM hooknswoop for details though, I could be wrong.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[FrogNog 1]

OK, I will find a Safire 189 to try out. I think someone near me has one around, if not I'm sure I can reach out further.

Anything else I should be experimentating with?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[mattjw916 2]

A couple things to remember about Safire 1s:

-Precision built ones have red bartacks at the line attachment points and are 7% smaller than the size on the placard on the tail, i.e. a 189 is really a 175ish and packs pretty much the same size as my Nitron 170.
-if it opens hard, it doesn't have the mod
-if it has "no flare", it doesn't have the mod (or you aren't flaring completely... none of that PD flare-to-your-shoulders BS, flare means flare.)
-some have oversized sliders (very S L O W openings, don't plan on pulling at 2k or you will have an AAD-fire eventually)

It's almost a crap shoot with those canopies but if you find one with red bartacks in good shape I'd send it to MEL to have it relined using hooknswoop's control line trim specs you will have one awesome canopy for less than half the cost of a new Sabre2 or whatever else floats your boat.

They have a great range of flight and decent recovery arc, a little short, but still fun. You can float all day or swoop it, but the riser pressure is pretty high on anything over a 180.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[thepollster 0]

Quote

-Precision built ones have red bartacks at the line attachment points and are 7% smaller than the size on the placard on the tail, i.e. a 189 is really a 175ish

Actually, all Safire1's are smaller than Safire2's with the same placarded size. I am not going to say they are smaller than the placarded size because it is just a different way of measuring canopies, even though it is safe to consider Safire1's smaller than placarded.

[CygnusX-1 42]

Another canopy you might want to try is the Firebolt (Jumpshack). I've been jumping one and am really impressed with it's performance, although I'm loading it at closer to 1.2. It has most of what you are asking for - snappy turns, soft openings, good flare (these are the characteristics that I was looking for in a canopy). I can't comment on recovery arc or front riser pressure as I haven't bothered to pay attention to them - I'm not doing HP landings.

[FrogNog 1]

Someone at my DZ has a Safire 1 189, apparently; I'll be leaning on him shortly. (You know who you are.
I'm used to finishing my flare. I find when I don't, my landings suck and my friends point and laugh. (OK, they actually talk kindly about how I didn't finish my flare.)

I'll see how this thing works out.

My front risering isn't exactly "more" or "less" than 90 or 180. I like to fly part or all of my box pattern (three 90 turns, more or less; it's a small airport) with front risers sometimes, and do front-riser S-turns on final sometimes. So on the one hand I'm not holding a single front riser turn past 90 degrees, but on the other hand I'm initiating front riser turns or adding more pull to one or the other front riser while the canopy is above neutral airspeed. I'll have to see how it works out. I'm pretty sure I'll cope.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.