grue 1 #51 July 2, 2002 Excuse my newbieness, but what does the ratio refer to? lbs:square feet?cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #52 July 2, 2002 Quotelbs:square feet? Exactly....and remember...thats your weight in FULL GEAR as you would exit the aircraft!! Not just what you weigh out of the shower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #53 July 2, 2002 Quotewhat does the ratio refer to? Wingloading. Pounds suspended weight (body weight plus all clothing and equipment) per square foot of canopy size. As an example, a person who is "out the door" at 170 pounds would load a 170 sq ft canopy at 1.0:1; go up to a 190 and the wingloading goes down to .89:1, go down to a 150 and the wingloading goes up to 1.12:1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #54 July 2, 2002 Quote Exactly....and remember...thats your weight in FULL GEAR as you would exit the aircraft!! Not just what you weigh out of the shower. Gotcha, thanks. Heh, hope the DZ I'm planning on dropping by has a 250+ sqft or so, if I at least wanna make 1:1 :Dcavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #55 July 2, 2002 Quotehope the DZ I'm planning on dropping by has a 250+ sqft My first jump was on a PD 260. A lot of DZ's use Manta 288's. I don't think you'll have any problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #56 July 2, 2002 QuoteQuotehope the DZ I'm planning on dropping by has a 250+ sqft My first jump was on a PD 260. A lot of DZ's use Manta 288's. I don't think you'll have any problems. Most excellent, I'll be giving them a call in the morning :D Fortunately, they're only about 2 hours away from my home, and about an hour and 15 minutes from school, so if all goes well...muahahahhacavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #57 July 2, 2002 QuoteHow much should that change based on elevation In addition to what skybytch has already said, I'd like to add that you may want to consider the temperatures at the DZ. What may be an appropriate wing-loading in the cool of winter, may be too aggressive during the summer. Please see THIS THREAD.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #58 July 2, 2002 > However, if I were you, I would sell anyone any canopy they wanted > to buy. You say you have 5 jumps, weigh about 240, and would like > a Cobalt 65??? You realize you're going to die right? I dunno about that. After having watched people I know, friends of mine, die right in front of me, I don't think I buy the "he's an idiot, so let him die" thing. Keeping skydivers alive is worth something, even if you get yelled at or called a canopy nazi. I'd rather have 100 people call me a canopy nazi than have 95 people really like me and have the other 5 be dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtCowan 0 #59 July 3, 2002 Lisa, The hardest canopies to land that I have jumped have been the least loaded. Rant on but consider at .8 the canopy is flying you. At 1.0+ you are more likely to be flying the canopy. More control can = more safety. As their is a point where a docile canopy starts to get dangerious at heavier loadings their is a point where a canopy can be dangerous at lighter loadings. In wind for example. I watched someone make 3 great flares this weekend on gear loaded at .8. The canopy did not respond probably due to being older f111. Then he jumped a sabre at 1.0 and was amazed at how easy it was to land.. Something to consider.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #60 July 3, 2002 >Rant on but consider at .8 the canopy is flying you. My BASE canopy is loaded at .7 to 1. It most certainly isn't flying me when I jump it. >At 1.0+ you are more likely to be flying the canopy. More control can > = more safety. If you cannot control a .8 to 1 canopy, then a canopy control class, some advice from an experienced jumper, or just plain more jumps on the canopy would be a better option than downsizing. The idea that you should downsize until you can control the canopy is absurd. >As their is a point where a docile canopy starts to get dangerious at > heavier loadings their is a point where a canopy can be dangerous > at lighter loadings. This is certainly true; every canopy has its limitations and advantages. Smaller canopies can handle stronger winds without backing up. However, this is an argument for not jumping in too-strong winds rather than jumping a small canopy. To see this in action, go to a large DZ and note who stays on the ground and who jumps when the winds get really squirrley. You'll notice it is the experienced jumpers who stand down, while the less-experienced jumpers keep jumping. This is not due to their larger canopy sizes; quite often they have smaller canopies than the less-experienced jumpers. However, they have learned good judgement. > I watched someone make 3 great flares this weekend on gear > loaded at .8. The canopy did not respond probably due to being > older f111. Then he jumped a sabre at 1.0 and was amazed at how > easy it was to land. I suspect a Sabre at .8 would be easier still. Ragged-out F111 canopies are not the best thing to learn on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #61 July 3, 2002 Quoteat .8 the canopy is flying you. At 1.0+ you are more likely to be flying the canopy. More control can = more safety Huh? How do you figure? A higher wingloading equals more speed and responsiveness, not more control. More speed and responsiveness is great for someone who can stay ahead of the canopy but not so good for someone who doesn't have the skill or experience to handle it. Quotetheir is a point where a canopy can be dangerous at lighter loadings. In wind for example. Right. Which is why those jumping lighter wingloadings should probably stay on the ground when the winds come up. imho, staying on the ground in high wind conditions isn't such a bad idea, especially for a newer jumper who probably doesn't have the experience yet to handle high winds. QuoteI watched someone make 3 great flares this weekend on gear loaded at .8. The canopy did not respond probably due to being older f111. Then he jumped a sabre at 1.0 and was amazed at how easy it was to land.. The difference there had more to do with the ragged out F111 fabric than the wingloadings. But what would I know... I've only got 300 jumps on ragged out F111 mains at .8 and 250 jumps on newer zp mains at 1.0 - 1.15... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jceman 1 #62 July 3, 2002 QuoteThe difference there had more to do with the ragged out F111 fabric than the wingloadings. Gotta go with Lisa on this one, too. I think that DZOs that put out students on clapped-out, detuned Mantas are doing their students a disservice. When I was on student status, I couldn't stand up a landing for anything (all jumps on Mantas); my DZO sold me a Skymaster for my first rig, it was 290 sq. feet, virtually the same as the Mantas. I had absolutely no problem standing it up, even when it blew up on me. While I was waiting for it to be repaired, I tried jumping the Mantas again -- landings sucked. After two I said fork this and waited until i got my Skymaster back. You have to look at ALL the variables to find out the real reasons for the differences in results. Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money. Why do they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fred 0 #63 July 3, 2002 QuoteDoes total size play a role as well? I'm 210-215 without gear, so you'd suggest around 240 sq ft? This was an honest question, I'm sad that it's been ignored. Maybe I sounded like a gung-ho lowbie who's not going to take your advice anyhow (and, this is probably partially true), but doesn't absolute size of the canopy play a role as well, apart from wingloading? That is, a 135 sq ft canopy loaded at 1.1:1 is more aggressive/dangerous than a 220 sq ft canopy at the same loading? As I stated previously, the 220 sq ft canopy loaded around 1.1:1 for me didn't feel like it was over my head. Yes, 90° turns low to the ground would hurt me more under this canopy, as I swing out from under it quicker and it turns faster, but in my Cessna DZ, I'm not concerned about being cut off, and even if I were, I think I have the presence of mind not to turn myself into the ground. It's awful easy to keep track of where 3 other parachutes are in the sky, and with my canopy size, I'm usually way above them. The DZO even said that once I can consistently land this one standing up, they want me on the Triathalon 210, which will be loaded somewhere between 1.1 and 1.14, depending on what I had for dinner. Is this crazy? Yell at me if this is out of control, and tell me why. I feel like under the 220 I flew in no-wind, that I could've been unconscious and I simply would have had some grassburn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #64 July 3, 2002 QuoteIs this crazy? I went from jumping a Skymaster 230 loaded at about .8 to a Sabre2 170 at 1.1. Damn, that Sabre2 was fast. I put my feet down during the planeout on my first landing and had a pretty nice knee slide, but I flew the canopy all the way to the ground. I was fine and confident that next time I would get it right. I did, but the landings were still quick. Last weekend I put a couple of jumps on an original Sabre 170 with a few thousand jumps on it. It landed a lot easier than the Sabre2, almost as easy as the Skymasters. I feel just as confident flying and landing the original Sabre 170 as I do the Skymaster 290s and 230s that I learned on. I don't feel as confident on the Sabre2. So where the hell was I going with this? At a 1.1:1 wingloading, it depends on the canopy, at least for me. I probably wouldn't buy a Sabre2 170 right now but I am seriously considering a used Sabre 170. It's plenty fast and responsive enough for me, but I am completely comfortable flying and landing it. Err, this post sucks. Distill whatever usefull information you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #65 July 3, 2002 >but doesn't absolute size of the canopy play a role as well, apart >from wingloading? That is, a 135 sq ft canopy loaded at 1.1:1 is > more aggressive/dangerous than a 220 sq ft canopy at the same > loading? As John LeBlanc has pointed out, it is very difficult to make comparisons like that. It's probably safe to say that a 135 at 1:1 feels faster and more manueverable than a 220 at 1:1. But more dangerous? That would depend on the student and his skills. If a low turn is a concern I would think the smaller canopy would be the more dangerous since it will turn faster. >I'm not concerned about being cut off, and even if I were, I think I > have the presence of mind not to turn myself into the ground. But, see, the problem is that everyone thinks that. Do you really think that anyone who has inadvertantly turned low thought beforehand "I don't have the presence of mind to fly this canopy?" Yet every year dozens of people do it, and a few die. They are not the DZ idiots; they are AFF-JM's and freeflyers and organizers who simply never learned to fly their canopy. The one way to make sure you know how to control your canopy near the ground, and turn it if necessary, is to do it. Learn to flat turn up high, then try it at 50 feet (starting gradually of course.) Once you've mastered that, you can say with confidence that if someone cuts you off, you won't just bury a toggle. >The DZO even said that once I can consistently land this one >standing up, they want me on the Triathalon 210, which will be > loaded somewhere between 1.1 and 1.14, depending on what I had > for dinner. Is this crazy? Not at all; the best way to approach self-taught canopy control is to set goals for yourself. Once you meet them then you are ready to move on. Standup landings are an absolute minimum. I would also add flat turns, flare turns, rear riser landings, front riser approaches, landing crosswind, landing in no wind and uphill/downhill landings. Once you can do all that you are probably ready for the smaller canopy. If you don't do that stuff on the larger canopy odds are you will never try it on the smaller canopy because you will be "being careful." You also have another thing going for you, which is a DZO who is paying attention to your progress. He will be the best person to ask if you have concerns about being ready to downsize. > I feel like under the 220 I flew in no-wind, that I could've been > unconscious and I simply would have had some grassburn. Hmm. I doubt that - try a crosswind landing (with a good flare, of course) then imagine the same landing going twice the speed in bad terrain with no flare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgtcowan2 0 #66 July 3, 2002 Bill, I didn't say I can't control it.. You know what I meant.. It is easier "for me" to land a canopy loaded at 1.0 than .07. Don't you think the flare is less forgiving "precise" on a canopy loaded at .7 than a canopt at 1.2 for example?? Personally I think it is dangerous to load a canopy too lightly.. And I agree, you shouldn't be jumping in high winds anyways but people do anyways. So ignorance should be considered.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #67 July 3, 2002 QuoteSo ignorance should be considered.. Now that was funny.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgtcowan2 0 #68 July 3, 2002 They should be considered... Don't you think.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #69 July 3, 2002 just out of curiosity - you've gone from rhino, to sgtcowan, to sgtcowan2 ... do you keep forgetting your password or something?!it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgtcowan2 0 #70 July 3, 2002 sure.. that's it.. I am having memory problems.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #71 July 3, 2002 Quotesure.. that's it.. I am having memory problems.. Do you think... maybe... you should take a hint? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #72 July 3, 2002 Don't poke the trolls. Leave that to the professionals. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jceman 1 #73 July 3, 2002 Dang That sure didn't take long... Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money. Why do they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #74 July 3, 2002 *psst quick andy! blame the vicodin, it always worked for me (and jess)*it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #75 July 3, 2002 Quote At a 1.1:1 wingloading, it depends on the canopy... Distill whatever usefull information you can. That is the most useful piece of information I've seen in this thread. I'm pretty sure that the canopy design is far more important than the size, or even the material (F111 or ZP). I typically jump canopies loaded around .6-.75. I'm pretty sure that if I could get high performance canopy at that loading, it'd still fly a whole lot faster and "swoopier" than my canopies. The design of the wing is a very important factor that seems to be getting overlooked in a whole lot of discussions about canopy progressions.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
