faulknerwn 36 #76 November 23, 2008 Quote While I don't dispute John's point, yours is off topic. We are discussing different sized canopies, not different models. A Sabre 2 135 at 1:1 is going much faster than a Sabre 2 190 at 1:1. Does it also turn faster? Yes it does. Does it lose more altitude in a 180 degree turn? not sure. It turns faster - but its forward speed is not faster.. CRW guys use this as a basis for building big-ways. Just like in RW, you want a fast base in CRW. We all load our Lightnings at 1.3-1.375 for the big-ways. But the top of the formations are all 193's and 218's - not only because they are faster than the small ones, but they are also floatier. For the outside of the formation - which we want going slower than the center so that the formation doesn't funnel - we use all 113's and 126's. Our canopies are naturally slower because the lines and bodies are more drag proportionately... I've flown my 113 besides 193's and 218's at the same wing-loading many a time - they leave me in the dust! They outrun and outfloat me... The funniest was one time we were doing 2-way rotations and I was underneath a guy who was on a 193 I think. He did an aggressive turn in and my end cells ended up touching behind me. My poor little canopy couldn't keep up! Once he slowed down my canopy reinflated and we docked. It was highly amusing.. Course there was the day they had me piloting a 16-way on my 113.. That was scary since everyone in the formation was faster than me! It was not exactly healthy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chubba 0 #77 November 23, 2008 Quote It turns faster - but its forward speed is not faster.. Oh really? So it turns faster/loses more altitude in a turn. What about the vertical descent in normal flight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 36 #78 November 23, 2008 The big ones have noticably more float than the little ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chubba 0 #79 November 24, 2008 So let me get this right. Sabre 135 1:1, Sabre 170 1:1. They will both have the same forward speeds. The smaller canopy will descent faster in all types of flight (braked/full flight etc?) and will turn faster/lose more altitude in a turn. Something about descending faster but having the same forward speed between the canopies is genuinely confusing me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 36 #80 November 24, 2008 The smaller canopy is slower and sinkier. It is "twitchier" though - the lines are usually shorter which will also make the canopy more responsive.. Same thing tends to exist in the canopy swooping arena. You'll find guys who wear a ton of lead weight in order to jump a bigger canopy because the bigger canopy will have more lift and is faster.. There's a reason Luigi doesn't jump the 39 in swoop competitions! What someone else said is that different styles of canopies in the same size generally fly about the same speed.. I.e. a Pilot 170 a Sabre 170 and a Stilletto 170 will all have about the same forward speed. They will have different turn speeds and such but the forward speed will be very similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #81 November 24, 2008 QuoteQuote As I said in my description the stats are incomplete and I will fill the missing ones out when I get them. There were some studies published and quoted many times when we were drafting up letters to fight the NPA-99 thing. The average of 1 fatality per 148,000 jumps is probably not significant enough to compare to the 1 per 100,000 jumps in the US so let's wait for more data. I suspect if the canopy advice here were really bad then you'd see a higher ratio of injuries and deaths per jump. -Michael so, essentially you are cofirming my statement of total lack of credibility of your statement ? why "say" something that you cannot backup ? That just takes away your credibility and distorts the conversaion. No, more like I just don't have the time to dig up all the stats. Above shows 50% more jumps per fatalitiy. I asked a statistician but really didn't get an answer I understood as to whether 148,000 positive outcomes compared with an average of 1 negative per year is the dominant stat. This is not the exact stat I saw and I don't want to quote numbers unless they're double checked. The one I saw showed about 45% fewer fatalities and 55% fewer injuries. I'll wait for exact numbers from the USPA and CSPA and then post them. Someone wrote an article on it so I was hoping someone would just pipe up with a link 'cause I don't remember exactly where I read it. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likestojump 3 #82 November 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote As I said in my description the stats are incomplete and I will fill the missing ones out when I get them. There were some studies published and quoted many times when we were drafting up letters to fight the NPA-99 thing. The average of 1 fatality per 148,000 jumps is probably not significant enough to compare to the 1 per 100,000 jumps in the US so let's wait for more data. I suspect if the canopy advice here were really bad then you'd see a higher ratio of injuries and deaths per jump. -Michael so, essentially you are cofirming my statement of total lack of credibility of your statement ? why "say" something that you cannot backup ? That just takes away your credibility and distorts the conversaion. No, more like I just don't have the time to dig up all the stats. Above shows 50% more jumps per fatalitiy. I asked a statistician but really didn't get an answer I understood as to whether 148,000 positive outcomes compared with an average of 1 negative per year is the dominant stat. This is not the exact stat I saw and I don't want to quote numbers unless they're double checked. The one I saw showed about 45% fewer fatalities and 55% fewer injuries. I'll wait for exact numbers from the USPA and CSPA and then post them. Someone wrote an article on it so I was hoping someone would just pipe up with a link 'cause I don't remember exactly where I read it. -Michael If you are talking to a statistician it would also be nice to know the standard deviation and margin of error for the population. Lastly, like the poster above said, many different foreigners come to Eloy, Perris, Florida DZ's for their vacations and get fucked up in the US, thus adding to the US statistics. Obviously US based training which so many people in this thread blast as conservative has no effect on those injuries/fatalities, yet it does stain the US record rather than the one of the country those parachutists belong to. In short, I personally don't think we can really get to the bottom of it.. :( I still would like for you to define "average safety record". thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #83 November 24, 2008 QuoteSo let me get this right. Sabre 135 1:1, Sabre 170 1:1. They will both have the same forward speeds. The smaller canopy will descent faster in all types of flight (braked/full flight etc?) and will turn faster/lose more altitude in a turn. Something about descending faster but having the same forward speed between the canopies is genuinely confusing me. With equal loading I believe how fast it sinks is related more to the trim angle not really with the size of the canopy. With more weight it will move forward faster and thus sink more feet per second but the glide ratio should be unchanged. In general with the shorter lines and such the smaller canopy is less forgiving to body position on opening. I know at 35 jumps I wasn't that good at flying the opening on my canopy even though I read and understood how to do it. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #84 November 24, 2008 QuoteIf you are talking to a statistician it would also be nice to know the standard deviation and margin of error for the population. Yeah, those were some of the words he used. I'm not the greatest in that area of math so he said come back with all the numbers and he'll write out an analysis. QuoteLastly, like the poster above said, many different foreigners come to Eloy, Perris, Florida DZ's for their vacations and get fucked up in the US, thus adding to the US statistics. Obviously US based training which so many people in this thread blast as conservative has no effect on those injuries/fatalities, yet it does stain the US record rather than the one of the country those parachutists belong to. The stats I posted were from the USPA and CSPA and were for member jumps, member fatalities and member injuries. I don't personally feel that the fatalities list shows a great picture and that's why I'm waiting to see the official numbers on injuries. I read a report with the stats arrived at a conclusion then communicated it. I'm happy to dig up numbers again to support that. The USPA listed about 800 injuries last year so a number like that is unlikely to be skewed so much by a few foreign visitors. QuoteI still would like for you to define "average safety record". For me, I'd say the number of jumps per injury and the number of jumps per fatality. Would both be good numbers to look at. Lots of people online were saying that with 35 or so jumps a sabre2 170 would be suicide and that my instructors were idiots for allowing that etc etc etc. Having put on a bunch of jumps and gained some additional experience since I don't feel that it was ever an unsafe recommendation. It did give an adequate amount of challenge. Most people were saying a 200-240 would be the minimum I should consider for at least 100 jumps. So back on topic while I am not an instructor and I do feel that a 150 is too aggressive, his home DZ is only 2h away and the advice he got was only 1 size off from me. Although I have some natural skills for canopy piloting I'm sure there are lots with way more talent than me and maybe the 150 isn't that suicidal for him. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #85 November 24, 2008 QuoteNo, you have friend that started out on some fairly highly loaded canopies due to their choice in canopy size, their weight has nothing to do with it. If they weighed 230 lbs, and jumped a 230, then it'd be a 1:1, but they chose to go to a 190/170, whatever is may be. Yeah, actually I do have more than one friend who, due to their weight when starting their student program, were loading their student canopies much higher than most people. You're right in the example you gave, just not in the example I gave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #86 November 24, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You may change your mind about canopy progression after a few medical bills. Good luck with that. Almost a thousand jumps so far and no medical bills so my luck is holding out, but thanks for your well wishes Operative words in this reply are "so far" and "luck". It's really funny how some people think they are the exception when it comes to doing stupid shit.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 0 #87 November 24, 2008 QuoteOperative words in this reply are "so far" and "luck". It's really funny how some people think they are the exception when it comes to doing stupid shit. Actually, the way he structured his sentence, is the exact opposite, he is stating that he hasn't YET had an accident, not that he never will. Sounds like he doesn't consider himself an exception at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 0 #88 November 24, 2008 QuoteYeah, actually I do have more than one friend who, due to their weight when starting their student program, were loading their student canopies much higher than most people. You're right in the example you gave, just not in the example I gave. Yes, they were loading them higher then other people, but not radically. Gear is TSO'd to 254 lbs I believe, so I can't imagine them loading a student canopy beyong 1:1 (unless the school is using small student canopies). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #89 November 24, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You may change your mind about canopy progression after a few medical bills. Good luck with that. Almost a thousand jumps so far and no medical bills so my luck is holding out, but thanks for your well wishes Operative words in this reply are "so far" and "luck". It's really funny how some people think they are the exception when it comes to doing stupid shit. Pay attention Chuck, it was YOU who used the term LUCK, i was parroting your words. I do not now nor have i ever considered myself an exception to the rule. Not only am i not an exception, I'm pretty conservative by OZ standards, most of the jumpers i know who have a similar amount of jumping in a similar time are loading canopies much higher than I am. The USofAs method of doing things is not the be all and end of of skydiving, pity you cant see that. So you might be better suited trying to yank someone else's chain I have had the same sig line for year because i truly believe it.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #90 November 24, 2008 QuoteQuote It turns faster - but its forward speed is not faster.. Oh really? So it turns faster/loses more altitude in a turn. What about the vertical descent in normal flight? For the same CANOPY design the Cl should be the same regardless of size, so the forward speed should be the same when the WL is the same. The glide ratio is given by Cl/Cd, which should also be the same for the same design and trim, so the vertical speed should also be the same if the WL is the same, regardless of size. Note, though, that different trim can affect forward speed and glide ratio, so all comparisons are off if canopies are out of trim. Also line drag is proportionally more on a small canopy, so its performance will be degraded relative to a larger one (all other things being equal). Smaller canopies have shorter lines, are generally much more sensitive to the controls, and turn faster, etc, which is what makes them a problem for the inexperienced.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #91 November 28, 2008 Quote Quote I'm the same weight and a bit shorter and at 40 jumps went from a 230 skymaster to a 150 hornet. Outside the USA a lot of people have a differnt way of downsizing. I wanted a 170, but my instructors talked me into a 150, these guys had 20 plus years experience each and thousands of sucessful students who are now also instructors and or up jumpers. i have 930 jumps, The way you know how to do things is not the only way to do it sometimes We can now officially stop asking why we have so many landing related injuries and fatals these days. This thread explains it quite well. However, this brings up another question: What the hell is this sport coming to. Wait...don't answer that. well, funny thing is, we hardly ever have incidents or fatalities over here. i was recommended a 150 at 60-something jumps.. but i'm also jumping on every opportunity to learn something new. i'm about to get into 90° approaches at the moment..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #92 November 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote well, funny thing is, we hardly ever have incidents or fatalities over here. Well the funnier thing is that you hardly have any skydivers over there.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 22 #93 November 30, 2008 and the funniest thing yet: chuck akers doesn't have the last word The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
