Canopy control & "running it off"

[RossDagley 0]

I love my canopy, and dont want to change it. I've just been thinking - always dangerous

But I'm sure I read someone say somewhere (might even have been Billvon?) that good canopy pilots should be able to land without running off the landing even in nil winds (I'm talking straight in approaches as opposed to swooping out the speed)

Is this true, and if so, does there come a point (canopy size wise) where a straight in approach *cannot* be landed without running it off?

[packerboy 3]

I took the Scott Miller Freedom of Flight canopy course a few weeks ago. One of our instructors was jumping a tiny Velocity loaded about 2:1 or so and when his landings were done as per Scott's instructions he wasn't running at all.

Not to mention I see people land crazy swoops all the time and shut it down properly and not have to run. It can be done.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[Tonto 1]

A canopy, like any wing, has a stall speed. That stall speed will be higher depending on the wing size, wing loading, tempreture, surface elevation, density altitude etc.

What you're saying is that if landed properly, all aircraft can touch down with their wheels locked, and without skidding their tyres. (That's tires for those of you without an Oxford dictionary..) That, as we know, is bullshit.

What can be done with a canopy is to rapidly convert a chunk of remaining airspeed to lift, pop up 6 or 8 feet, go to stall recovery to get the canopy back above you and reflare for landing, but that's considered to be an old timer trick to prevent having to run over uneven terain like Ben Johnson on steroids and is frowned upon by the purists as it kills a lot of potential distance.

Swoopers are able to do everything those with a straight aproach can do. Even though they enter their landing at above trim speed, once their level flight, altitude gain or parasitic drag has reduced that speed to trim speed, they're playing the same game as everyone else. Those who say they "have to" swoop do not understand even the most basic principles involved - unless they intend landing their canopies at above trim speed. (Something several femur kids are king at, by the way..)

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[AndyMan 7]

I can't top Tonto's explanation.

I will offer my own anecdote. I jump at about a 1.9 wingloading. At this level of performance, "runway management" is critical. Rarely do I slide for less than 30 feet in no wind conditions. This happens at the end of what may be a several hundred foot swoop.

Notice I said slide, not run. At higher wingloadings, "running off" the landing is not only dangerous, but nearly impossible. Most people jumping at higher wingloadings slide off the excess speed on their feet. The technique involves putting most of your weight on one foot (for me, the left), and putting the other foot out in front to provide forward stability as you slow down. You don't really need to worry about side-to-side balance since you do have a canopy overhead providing lift, which holds you up.

The first time I tried it I found it far easier than I had imagined.

The technique of stalling your canopy right before a no-step touchdown is oldSkool, and high performance canopy flight is clearly taking us away from that model.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[outlawphx 1]

Yeah, most of the time I slide it out on my feet to a stop, but occasionally mud or other issues force me to run a little.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...
The technique of stalling your canopy right before a no-step touchdown is oldSkool, and high performance canopy flight is clearly taking us away from that model.

_Am

I'm an old fart and "old school" is what I like.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[RossDagley 0]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I originally read (whereever that was) then.

I took it to mean Just like I would perform a straight in approach into good winds (say 15kts), and when I flare I simple stand it up, dont have to even step forwards, just float it down, flare, tip-toe perfect.

My question perhaps should have been worded better - is this attitude and expectation unrealistic in nil-winds? IE, I will always have to run it off (or slide it in once I've the experience to try)?

Hope that makes sense!

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

My question perhaps should have been worded better - is this attitude and expectation unrealistic in nil-winds?

Yes, it's unrealistic in no winds.

If you choose to jump at higher wingloadings, it becomes unrealistic even with good winds.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[LawnDart21 0]

Quote

The technique involves putting most of your weight on one foot (for me, the left), and putting the other foot out in front to provide forward stability as you slow down.

Taking your landing gear (your sneakers or tevas) up and down the runway dragging them while on a motorcycle will wear down the treads on them and make for smoother slides................

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The technique of stalling your canopy right before a no-step touchdown is oldSkool, and high performance canopy flight is clearly taking us away from that model.

_Am

I'm an old fart and "old school" is what I like.

So your canopy completely stops flying, and drops you backwards when you land? Scary man, scary.

Well, that's what would happen if you stalled your canopy. Its an old misconception that a proper flare and the optiminal flare is a stall, its not. Go up and do a good proper flare around 4k, look at the nose and see where you are in reference to the nose of the canopy. Return the canopy to neutral flight, count to 10 then do a full stall. You may have to take a couple of wraps on the toggles to do so. Look where you are in relation to the nose of the canopy and what the canopy does. Not only that, but feel yourself start to fall backward during the first part of the stall.

It took me a while to be untaught, since I learned the same way, that a proper flare is a stall, but its not.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[CanuckInUSA 0]

A wing can stall at any airspeed and at any attitude. I stall my canopy on virtually every swoop that I make. If the canopy didn't stall, I would have swooped forever and while swooping forever is a cool thought, we know it isn't possible. Since we're not powered our airspeed is limited. Since we compensate for lost airspeed by changing the angle of attack, sooner or later we will exceed the critical angle of attack and the wing will stall. You don't need to deform your canopy in order to stall it.

On a landing in which the jumper hasn't pounded in and has to run out their landing. We'll either they induced the stall sooner than they needed to by not finishing their flare (not properly changing the angle of attack to compensate for the lost airspeed) or the environment in which they jump (like high density altitude) has created a higher stalling airspeed. The stall speed of a wing is very dynamic and changes all the time depending on how the wing is being flown (angle of attack), the environment in which it flies and the forces put upon the wing. We're just usually not flying close to the critical angle off attack until we're low to the ground. Pilots are taught all this stuff about how and why a wing stalls, why aren't skydivers?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Since we compensate for lost airspeed by changing the angle of attack, sooner or later we will exceed the critical angle of attack and the wing will stall. You don't need to deform your canopy in order to stall it.

The wing will only stall if you choose to increase the angle of attack past the critical angle. Just reaching the point of highest lift (shape and AOA wise) and stopping there will allow for a more gradual decrease in lift as airspeed continues to drop, as opposed to the sudden and pronounced loss of lift (and control) in a stall. A much softer way to transfer yourself from flight to ground especially for low time jumpers (who would find it very difficult to reach the stall point without going backwards in anything more than the lightest winds).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[happythoughts 0]

On a no-wind day, I usually flare about 18 inches higher than usual. It gives it more time to stall. Try that and see if it helps. It is mentally difficult to do though.

Brain: "...but I don't want to flare higher..."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A canopy, like any wing, has a stall speed. That stall speed will be higher depending on the wing size, wing loading, tempreture, surface elevation, density altitude etc.

You land when you fail to sustain level flight regardless of whether the wing has stalled or not. That happens when the wing no longer has enough lift to offset the suspended weight. Stalling while landing a parachute is rare.

By changing wing shape (brake application magnitude), angle of attack (brake magnitude and rate), and wing loading (the canopy only has to support the suspended weight) you can have this happen at a pleasant walking speed under most canopies.

A lot of people try to run when their feet get close to the ground even though the canopy has plenty of speed to convert to lift. When you have lift you don't need to land even though your feet are touching the ground. If you're running try picking up your feet when you feel you should run. You'll probably be surprised at how much slower you can fly before setting down.

A lot of people settle for the slowest speed they can get with slow steady control inputs. Finishing the flare more aggressively allows a greater angle of attack change, more lift, and slower landing without stalling. Sinking before doing this so that you're essentially in a sitting position and then standing up to land means you finish at ground level and don't drop because you were high. The low altitude is also more forgiving of an over-exuberance induced stall.

And a lot of people insist on landing with all of their weight hanging from the canopy. On level grass you can take up some weight on your feet, fly the canopy to a slower landing speed, and run less. It doesn't count for swoop distance but does make things more pleasant especially on hot summer days with no wind.

On all but the largest canopies a stall-free landing means you have some forward movement but this can be far from running.

Less wind, higher density altitude, and higher wingloading don't change how a canopy lands. They just require more optimal pilot input to get acceptable landings.

[Throttlebender 0]

I know this is old, but I'm trying to work through some of this right now. This was a great explaination. Thanks

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

The technique of stalling your canopy right before a no-step touchdown is oldSkool, and high performance canopy flight is clearly taking us away from that model.

_Am

I'm an old fart and "old school" is what I like.

So your canopy completely stops flying, and drops you backwards when you land? Scary man, scary.

Nope.
You're funny man, funny.

I do appreciate the attempt to put words in my mouth, though. Nice try.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239