ElectricFetus 0 #1 June 18, 2011 hello again gang. i did a search for this topic and came up goose eggs for what i was after so: reading the threads it's obvious that a main -too small- can be very dangerous. but i've never seen it discussed here of the dangers [if any] of a main that's -too big-. so my questions are: ARE there any dangers in that? WHAT are those dangers? WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Than you in advance for any input. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sacex250 0 #2 June 18, 2011 Here's some useful information from Performance Designs, especially the last section about Minimum Wing Loading. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/W-L_Interpretations.pdfIt's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skycamefalling 0 #3 June 18, 2011 I did a quick search on here and found this thread. Hopefully it will answer some of your questions. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1589524;search_string=Too%20light%20of%20wingloading;#1589524Speedracer~I predict that Michael Jackson will rise from the dead. And that a giant radioactive duck will emerge from the ocean and eat Baltimore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #4 June 20, 2011 Quote WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Jumping F111 seven cells at .7 pounds/square foot you might develop tastes for classic accuracy and BASE jumping into tight landing areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #5 June 20, 2011 Quote Quote WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Jumping F111 seven cells at .7 pounds/square foot you might develop tastes for classic accuracy and BASE jumping into tight landing areas. May also turn you to the Dark Side ........... paragliding (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #6 June 20, 2011 QuoteHere's some useful information from Performance Designs, especially the last section about Minimum Wing Loading. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/W-L_Interpretations.pdf That doesn't answer the question of "why". A couple of major reasons: -In high winds, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to penetrate the wind as well as highly loaded ones. You may find yourself going backwards when highly loaded canopies are getting some penetration. Hence the blurb about "might be wise to stay on the ground. -In gusty winds or with turbulence, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to handle it as well as highly loaded canopies. Hence the blurb about "might be wise to stay on the ground. Is there a magic number? No. Too many variables to be able to say that....winds. canopy make and model, temperature, altitude, pilot skill....and more.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #7 June 20, 2011 Quote -In gusty winds or with turbulence, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to handle it as well as highly loaded canopies. I disagree, a 747 can be taken down in turbulence. Having jumped a big accuracy canopy and a xbraced 69.... Both can be bothered by turbulence. And if one were to partially collapse... I'd rather be under the big ass canopy than the small one."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trae 1 #8 June 21, 2011 in reply to "Having jumped a big accuracy canopy and a xbraced 69.... Both can be bothered by turbulence. And if one were to partially collapse... I'd rather be under the big ass canopy than the small one. " ......................................... oh yeah, me too. Going back to jumping large 7cell f111 canopies (tall walling ) has been an absolute delight. Now my skydiving gear looks a bit dangreous in comparison. Base jumpers show a great deal of sense when it comes to canopy selection. The skydiving community could learn a lot from them in this respect. What some would see as backwards step, ie a return to docile slower canopies, others would recognise as a safety improvement. Its just no good for our sport when the canopies are faster than the pilots. How many more players would there be if they weren't taken out by landing injuries.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hookitt 0 #9 June 21, 2011 QuoteBASE jumpers show a great deal of sense when it comes to canopy selection. For BASE jumping yes, but, that has nothing to do with our choice of skydiving canopies. For BASE, I have a 240 designed for the job it's intended. For skydiving, I jump a Velocity.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trae 1 #10 June 21, 2011 in reply to "For BASE jumping yes, but, that has nothing to do with our choice of skydiving canopies. For BASE, I have a 240 designed for the job it's intended. For skydiving, I jump a Velocity. " ............................ Sure might mean nothing to you , to me its made me re-evaluate my choice of skydiving canopy. 260 for base was excellent . Now my K120 looks like a suckers canopy . The slightest whiff in the wrong direction and it wants to kill me. Newbies should realise its OK to go a bit slower ,..and stay there, that skydiving doesn't mean you HAVE to have a tiny HP canopy . ALL the long term skydivers I know have pissed their tiny HP's off and now jump sensibly sized canopies. Like me, they've seen TOO many people get sucked into the fast landing BS trip. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
sacex250 0 #2 June 18, 2011 Here's some useful information from Performance Designs, especially the last section about Minimum Wing Loading. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/W-L_Interpretations.pdfIt's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycamefalling 0 #3 June 18, 2011 I did a quick search on here and found this thread. Hopefully it will answer some of your questions. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1589524;search_string=Too%20light%20of%20wingloading;#1589524Speedracer~I predict that Michael Jackson will rise from the dead. And that a giant radioactive duck will emerge from the ocean and eat Baltimore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #4 June 20, 2011 Quote WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Jumping F111 seven cells at .7 pounds/square foot you might develop tastes for classic accuracy and BASE jumping into tight landing areas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #5 June 20, 2011 Quote Quote WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Jumping F111 seven cells at .7 pounds/square foot you might develop tastes for classic accuracy and BASE jumping into tight landing areas. May also turn you to the Dark Side ........... paragliding (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #6 June 20, 2011 QuoteHere's some useful information from Performance Designs, especially the last section about Minimum Wing Loading. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/W-L_Interpretations.pdf That doesn't answer the question of "why". A couple of major reasons: -In high winds, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to penetrate the wind as well as highly loaded ones. You may find yourself going backwards when highly loaded canopies are getting some penetration. Hence the blurb about "might be wise to stay on the ground. -In gusty winds or with turbulence, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to handle it as well as highly loaded canopies. Hence the blurb about "might be wise to stay on the ground. Is there a magic number? No. Too many variables to be able to say that....winds. canopy make and model, temperature, altitude, pilot skill....and more.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #7 June 20, 2011 Quote -In gusty winds or with turbulence, lightly loaded canopies will not be able to handle it as well as highly loaded canopies. I disagree, a 747 can be taken down in turbulence. Having jumped a big accuracy canopy and a xbraced 69.... Both can be bothered by turbulence. And if one were to partially collapse... I'd rather be under the big ass canopy than the small one."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #8 June 21, 2011 in reply to "Having jumped a big accuracy canopy and a xbraced 69.... Both can be bothered by turbulence. And if one were to partially collapse... I'd rather be under the big ass canopy than the small one. " ......................................... oh yeah, me too. Going back to jumping large 7cell f111 canopies (tall walling ) has been an absolute delight. Now my skydiving gear looks a bit dangreous in comparison. Base jumpers show a great deal of sense when it comes to canopy selection. The skydiving community could learn a lot from them in this respect. What some would see as backwards step, ie a return to docile slower canopies, others would recognise as a safety improvement. Its just no good for our sport when the canopies are faster than the pilots. How many more players would there be if they weren't taken out by landing injuries.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #9 June 21, 2011 QuoteBASE jumpers show a great deal of sense when it comes to canopy selection. For BASE jumping yes, but, that has nothing to do with our choice of skydiving canopies. For BASE, I have a 240 designed for the job it's intended. For skydiving, I jump a Velocity.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #10 June 21, 2011 in reply to "For BASE jumping yes, but, that has nothing to do with our choice of skydiving canopies. For BASE, I have a 240 designed for the job it's intended. For skydiving, I jump a Velocity. " ............................ Sure might mean nothing to you , to me its made me re-evaluate my choice of skydiving canopy. 260 for base was excellent . Now my K120 looks like a suckers canopy . The slightest whiff in the wrong direction and it wants to kill me. Newbies should realise its OK to go a bit slower ,..and stay there, that skydiving doesn't mean you HAVE to have a tiny HP canopy . ALL the long term skydivers I know have pissed their tiny HP's off and now jump sensibly sized canopies. Like me, they've seen TOO many people get sucked into the fast landing BS trip. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
