Is there any point in me downsizing further?

[chuckakers 369]

tikl68

Hi Chuck. My home DZ is Elsinore. We have a few of very experienced canopy pilots that also call Elsinore home. I was also very fortunate to know Jonathon Taggle as Elsinore was also his home. I did video from the ground a couple of times for his flight 1 course and had the benefit of sitting through the debriefs. JT was very approachable and had no problems talking to some one. I was a pretty conservative pilot when it came to progression, and listened to people like JT,JC, Andy Malchiodi, etc. If you're ever in so cal stop by.

Kuddos to Elsinore!

JT was a terrific guy and you are lucky you had his very positive influence. My son is a Flight 1 instructor and CP competitor (PD Factory and US CP Teams) and JT was a good influence on him as he was climbing up the ranks.

I am glad to see that - for the most part - skydivers are finally understanding that patience, training, and education are essential to stay safe as loadings increase.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[tikl68 6]

I realize how fortunate i am to have had the opportunity to meet,jump with and,get guidance from him and a couple others. We still have that random wing nut that comes up and thinks the rules dont apply, or "it" will not happen to me. So we advise them and either stand by to assist when "it" does happen,or they are told "not here". If your son has ever done the Flight 1 course at Elsinore, then I have probably met him.

BS

[chuckakers 369]

tikl68

I realize how fortunate i am to have had the opportunity to meet,jump with and,get guidance from him and a couple others. We still have that random wing nut that comes up and thinks the rules dont apply, or "it" will not happen to me. So we advise them and either stand by to assist when "it" does happen,or they are told "not here". If your son has ever done the Flight 1 course at Elsinore, then I have probably met him.

BS

Not sure if he has or not. His name is Justin Price. He lives in Eloy so it's possible he's done a course or two there.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Moosie 0]

chuckakers

Not sure if he has or not. His name is Justin Price. He lives in Eloy so it's possible he's done a course or two there.

I love how proud papa you are, Chuck. Your kid's a good one.

I've never gotten canopy coaching from JT, but I have had plenty from Justin. The Flight 1 program is a great one!

To the OP, I'm a conservative jumper. I love freefall and canopy flight. I have plenty of fun under my massive wing. I don't understand the need many newer jumpers have to downsize so quickly. Honestly, I could see myself staying with my large canopy, or at least the same size.

I was told long ago, similar to other posters, that until you can truly fly and land your canopy in any situation then you're probably not ready to downsize.

[Westerly 61]

Where I jump wind and turbulence is a legitimate problem. Enough that everyone from the S&TA to master riggers appear to condone higher WLs and suggest downsizing when any jumper is ready. However, I have to ask whether a smaller wing is truly safer in heavy winds. Is a 150 or 135 really that much more resistant to collapse than a 170? Also one has to take into consideration the risks that come with flying a smaller wing against any advantages gained in the wind and look at a holistic view to determine which option is the safest.

I fly an airlocked 170 canopy and so I feel like downsizing to a 150 without airlocks is probably less safe than a 170 with airlocks in the wind, but I'm just guessing.

[billvon 2,380]

>Is a 150 or 135 really that much more resistant to collapse than a 170?

In my experience, no. It's a bit more resistant to turbulence, but that is offset by the worse outcomes when turbulence does bite you.

Pluses:

The additional speed means that a gust has to be higher speed to cause a stall
The smaller size is easier to collapse after landing

Minuses:

The higher flight and stall speed means that turbulence can hurt you more near the ground
Changes in direction caused by turbulence require very fast (and careful) corrections near the ground

[Joellercoaster 6]

chuckakers

***

Quote

I've actually gave some consideration to moving up in size as I get older and I don't jump as much as I use to

I just did exactly that. Upsized both main and reserve.

Wendy P.

+1


Me three.

I'm not super current at the moment, so the Stiletto has gone in the cupboard and I have a Sabre 150 for a while. I'm enjoying just cruising around, it might stay all season...

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[MikeJD 0]

I don't in any way want to encourage you to downsize. The advice given above is smart advice - after a certain point, reducing the size of your canopy increases the risk to your person. You should stick to what you can safely and comfortably fly and land in all conceivable conditions and circumstances.

Having said all that, I just wanted to mention that for me much of the pleasure of jumping smaller canopies isn't about the performance of the canopy at all - it's simply about the convenience of having less fabric to deal with, and that's not an insignificant benefit.

Packing is easier. Collapsing, gathering up and carrying the canopy and climbing into the dropzone van after landing are all easier. Having smaller canopies in turn allows me to have a smaller, lighter rig - and that means that I have a better aerodynamic profile in freefall, take up less room in the plane and in the door, and get less sweaty walking around in my kit on a hot day.

Of course none of the above will be of any consolation when your pocket rocket is winding up on you during opening, or you're trying to get yourself safely to the ground in a tiny field after a bad spot on a gusty day.

I'm just saying, it's not all about performance.