accuracy canopy

[psf 1]

Hello all. I looked thru old forums but found nothing posted in the last few years on this subject. I am looking to get rid of my stilleto and go to an accuracy canopy. I would like thoughts/ideas/pro's/cons of options. Ideally would like 7 cell, vented?, able to jump in as wide a range of wind conditions as possible. Any help?

ignorance is not bliss

[councilman24 36]

Do you mean a canopy suitable for accuracy competition? Steep approach into a tuffet with heel strike paramount? Or a canopy suitable for standup demo landings into tight areas?

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerrob 558]

Please complete your profile.

[riggerrob 558]

psf

... looking to get rid of my stilleto and go to an accuracy canopy. ... able to jump in as wide a range of wind conditions as possible. ...

....................................................................................

Careful what you wish for.
Hardcore accuracy competition canopies are usually loaded half (0.7 pounds per square foot) as heavy as Stillettos (1.5). Since they are loaded lighter, accuracy canopies have less forward speed, ergo they tend to back-up in winds more than 20 mph.

A possible compromise might involve a 7-cell loaded at 1:1. Popular 7-cells include Triathlon, Spectre, etc,

[psf 1]

? my profile appears about right.
but to follow up.
I am 200 lbs and load the stilleto heavy. I am looking for something that I can land in tight area's. I have over 1500 tandems, over 300 base jumps (jump a 300 F11 vented), and really looking for the challenge of putting the canopy right where I want it.

ignorance is not bliss

[JohnMitchell 14]

I haven't kept up with accuracy canopies but you'll want one in the 250+ foot range. Not sure if they are still all F-111 or have gone ZP. Be ready to buy a new rig 'cause it's gonna pack up pretty big.

I was never hard core but have my share of accuracy jumps. It's cool, like doing RW with the ground. But I wouldn't want to carry that big canopy on every jump anymore.

[ryoder 1,381]

PD's accuracy canopy: http://www.performancedesigns.com/zero.asp

NAA's Parafoil: http://www.naaero.com/sport/parafoil.htm

Here is John Eiff's website, but it hasn't changed in years, so I don't know if it is up-to-date: http://eiff.com/index.htm

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[joesky 0]

How big is the tight spot you want to land on? Is it a 2 cm dead center on a tuffet? Or is it a 10x10 foot area? Or bigger still such as a baseball diamond or the end zone in a stadium? If your answer is the dead center then you need a Zero, Foil or Classic (as Ryoder points out). And, you will need a whack of training jumps and bigger container etc. However, if your goal is to be accurate within yards or feet then I would suggest that there are probably a number of sport canopies out there that can get the job done. Our readers know which canopies might be best for you – I do not ( I have only ever jumped accuracy canopies).
But, if the 2 cm. dead center is calling to you!! - then by all means get yourself one of the above mentioned accuracy canopies. It is a terrific discipline. The most challenging in the world – to stand on a podium in a major classic accuracy competition means you have bettered 200 other competitors. Only canopy piloting comes close to that many rivals (for example a typical FS event will see 30 to 40 teams).
But I am getting off topic. More important to ask you why you need a different canopy? Jumpers have been accurate with every canopy type over the years. They got that way with training. PC’s were deadly accurate (world records of 100’s of dead centers in a row [10 cm. disc]). Perhaps you need to invest in some coaching and not a different canopy. After all, it is not the canopy that is accurate. It is the pilot.
Like I said earlier there is probably a better canopy for your needs out there. But the biggest factor in your future improved accuracy will not come from the canopy but from your training. Seeing, understanding and utilizing the angle, wind and canopy speed are the key elements. Don’t try and re-invent the wheel – get some coaching.

[riggerrob 558]

Any canopy can be used to refine accuracy skills. Heck! I earned my exhibition jump rating with an Ariel 150 and a Stiletto 135!
May I suggest continuing to refine your accuracy skills with your 300 square foot BASE canopy?
Once you are consistently standing up less than 5 metres from the disc, then invest in a Para-Foil, Classic or Eiff canopy. That canopy will pack roughly the same size as your BASE canopy .. er ... twice the size of your Stiletto.

[psf 1]

thank you all for the info on canopies.
advice on learning how to fly my current stiletto - good general advice.
I have my pro rating for the stiletto, so I think I have some idea how to fly it.
I can fly that is all wind conditions and land where I want to within a few meters, but its time for a new challenge. I don't want to swoop - no interest. I like base jumping and this type of canopy (accuracy) seems to be a good way to stay current on skills needed for real accuracy in tight LZ's. Kind of hard to practice with a troll in the dark of night. Perrine is great, but I only make it there a few times a year.

If anyone has first hand knowledge of the characteristics of accuracy canopies, I would love a PM and move this offline.

ignorance is not bliss

[craddock 0]

why not just order another non vented base canopy for skydiving? I have an old sharpshuter somewhere I would give you if I can find it but that is not what your looking for. If your goal is practice for base than stick with what you have. Only issue I see is resale value vs a skydiving accuracy canopy

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[joesky 0]

Just to be clear - are you looking for a classic accuracy canopy (zero, foil, classic) to use on base jumps? And second, are you looking for someone with the appropriate knowledge and skill with classic accuracy canopies to help you/coach you with respect to your base landings?

[riggerrob 558]

Try reading the manual for the ZERO (Performance Designs website) or EIFF CHALLENGER CLASSIC (New England Parachute Co. or Eiff Aerodynamics.
Both manuals have well-illustrated explanations of classic accuracy techniques. They both look like they were written by Jim Hayhurst, a long-time member of USPA's accuracy team.

[file 1]

If you're not planing to jump on a tuffet, then you don't want canopy for classic accuracy, there is so many cons. Design is not for flaring, lifetime is quite short, expensive, wind limits...

But classic accuracy is quite demanding and interesting if you have a place to do it.

JohnMitchell

. Not sure if they are still all F-111 or have gone ZP.

Parachutes de France had some kind of hybrid, but it didn't work out. Even new F111 needs 50- 100 jumps to reach best porosity for CA jumps...

[nigel99 143]

I recently put a few jumps on a Classic that belongs to a friend. 238 square foot and he was only just happy with my weight on it (180 exit). I took it to terminal and it was fine.

I've got very little experience on the subject, but I reckon a lightly loaded Sabre 2 or Storm would be a better choice. I reckon that a Sabre 2 loaded around 1:1 could be pretty safely sunk in on an approach.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[demonstalker1 0]

What would you consider the best canopy for soft landings in a tight area.. I am about 205 in my jumpsuit no gear.. I have a limited range for brakes.. only can get about 3/4 brakes?
[r

[councilman24 36]

demonstalker1

What would you consider the best canopy for soft landings in a tight area.. I am about 205 in my jumpsuit no gear.. I have a limited range for brakes.. only can get about 3/4 brakes?
[r

I don't understand the last sentence. Some sort of physical limitation?

I'm not current enough or have enough experience with a big variety of canopies to give best advice. But I'd pick a 1:1 triathlon or Sabre 1. I like canopies that open instead of streamer so i can get out at 2000' if I want. In about 1990 I had a Sabre 190 and a Manta 280 (bum leg). When I wanted a soft landing I grabbed the Sabre. But this an old fart talking.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[JohnMitchell 14]

demonstalker1

I have a limited range for brakes.. only can get about 3/4 brakes?

Bad shoulders or short arms?

[HapHazard 0]

demonstalker1

I have a limited range for brakes.. only can get about 3/4 brakes?

One thing you can try is to trim your canopy with a little bit of brakes set, tail turned down slightly, even when the toggles are full-up in full flight. You sacrifice a little forward speed, but that will give you more range on the bottom end to get deeper into the brakes.

[mathrick 2]

That will only serve to worsen the landings. It will lower the maximum speed, yes, and the speed given amount of movement on brakes will result in, but it will do nothing to make landings softer. It will make them harder. Ram-air canopies are airfoils, they need airspeed to generate lift, which is what a flare exploits to arrest the vertical descent. A canopy that isn't in full flight at the beginning of flare requires deeper, faster input to achieve acceptable landings, so permanently braking it will only exacerbate Doug's problems. It also invites a stall, which will be all the worse.

Instead, what I'd suggest is try wrapping the brake lines around your hands until there's no slack left with your arms all the way up (so there's no bow in the brake lines, they just go in a straight line to the trailing edge), but without deflecting the tail. Ie. make the steering lines the shortest they can be while still affording full flight, then flare from there. That will give deeper inputs, without compromising the airspeed flare is made of.

Caution: try this up high (way above 2000ft) first, on a dedicated jump, holding the flare all the way down for at least 5s. It's hard to know without seeing you and your canopy how much slack you will take out, and it could well end up stalling your canopy. You need to know if it does and be prepared for it, especially if previously you couldn't fully pull the brakes, so stall was never a possibility. If you don't know how to recognise a stall, stop talking to strangers on the 'tubes and get your instructor, then do practice stalls high up (although with a D licence, I sure hope you know well what a stall is :)

"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

[pchapman 261]

mathrick

That will only serve to worsen the landings. It will lower the maximum speed, yes, and the speed given amount of movement on brakes will result in, but it will do nothing to make landings softer. It will make them harder.

While I acknowledge your warning to be careful about that, I'll note that it isn't always that big a deal in accuracy canopies, where typically one may be sinking onto a tuffet, starting in partial brakes, and are not expecting a full dynamic flare from zero brakes in the first place!

Even off the tuffet, going from a crappy flare to a slightly crappier flare on a big canopy may not be a big issue.

Having to do an approach with a wrap of brake lines on the hands and heavy forces on the brakes lines cutting into ones hands may not be so comfortable, especially when trying to go for the electronic pad.

(As just an occasional accuracy jumper, although I made the Canadian team a couple times, I'm OK with just using regular loop toggles on my Foil 282. Others however like their wooden toggles for even better feel, sensitivity, and lack of distraction.)

With an accuracy canopy one often doesn't want to give up any top end speed as they are already pretty slow, so that is a valid concern.

Although I'm long armed, I did once rig up an accuracy canopy so I'd get full extension to the stall -- edit to clarify: moved toggles up the lines so I could pull right to the stall -- at the cost of a slight amount of brake with toggles up. Not ideal but it was for me an acceptable tradeoff at the time.

Alternatively one could rig something up like swoopers' risers, where the brake line only dips into the brake set ring (for setting) and doesn't go thru it. When toggles are popped, the brake lines are restrained by added rings higher up near the links. Thus giving extra slack which might help the original poster both move toggles up the lines, and retain full speed with hands fully up.

[riggerrob 558]

Agreeing with pchapman on this issue.

Our Danish friend was giving good advice about canopies loaded close to 1 pound per square foot. I tried all the Danish tricks on my Cruislite.

However, I am not sure if the Danish tricks are relevant to lightly-loaded precision landing canopies. When you are only loading at 0.7 psf you are never going to get a spectacular flare. But since you are already descending so slowly, it does not make much difference on landing speed.

Also consider that low aspect-ratio canopies (less than 2 to 1 on Para-Foil) do not flare very well to begin with. Instead, Para-Foils depend upon light wing-loadings to soften landings.

Consider that classic accuracy competitors fly most of their approach in half brakes. As they approach the target, they apply more and more brakes until they mush or stall vertically the last metre or two. Classic accuracy competitors do not want a dynamic flare that significantly changes their approach angle.

Back to the OP: set up your 300 square foot BASE canopy so that it stalls at 7/8 arm extension. Only fly classic accuracy approaches with large, lightly-loaded canopies (300-ish square feet). And only do hard-core, stalled approaches onto a soft target. Inflated tuffets are best, but freshly-raked pea-gravel is almost as good at cushioning landings.

[mathrick 2]

You're both right about accuracy canopies, though I wouldn't consider accuracy landings to be "good", rather they're acceptably shitty and it's your job to hit the soft target :). But my impression was that demostalker1 was not asking for a classic accuracy canopy, but rather hijacking the original thread to ask about a canopy that will land softly in general tight spaces that aren't accuracy tuffets with limited brake range (I'm guessing for demos maybe? Or maybe just a very small LZ). For which a Parafoil is not necessarily the answer. But I might be wrong of course.

"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

[riggerrob 558]

Demonstalker would be best off with a 300 square foot BASE canopy if: he is not interested in classic precise landing competition and only cares about soft landings in tight areas.
BASE canopies flare better than PL canopies.

[pchapman 261]

mathrick

But my impression was that demostalker1 was not asking for a classic accuracy canopy,

OK!
I missed seeing the OP was PSF in 2014 but you responded to Haphazard who responded to Demonstalker1 who revived the thread in 2016 with a different question under the same title.

And Demonstalker never clarified his "only 3/4 brakes" issue, what canopy is involved, or more about his needs...