billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
QuoteThat was one of main reasons for downsizing. I was loading my canopy so light that I couldnt get any penetration on semi-windy days. I find now I can get some penetration when before I couldnt. I dont know if other light weight jumpers have the same problems I was having, maybe not.
Penetration..........mmmmmmmmmm( Homer voice)
P.S.
Sorry, but I couldn't resist
matt1215 0
The thought of downsizing does cross my mind, both for an easier pack and to fly something a bit more zippy in the sky. My instructors told me I'd be fine with a 190, maybe even a 170, so I bought a 210 (@ .95:1 W/L).
It feels like I'm driving a bus when i do pullups on the front risers, but I still have a lot to learn from it. The bottom line is having a big canopy's saved my bacon on some really hard landings. The difference between bruised and broken.
It feels like I'm driving a bus when i do pullups on the front risers, but I still have a lot to learn from it. The bottom line is having a big canopy's saved my bacon on some really hard landings. The difference between bruised and broken.
QuoteI find new jumpers tend to downsize to quickly because they purchase a canopy with future plans instead of present skill.
That "you'll get bored" thing does indeed happen all the time. Sometimes they even have a point.
Truth be told, I do find myself wishing for something a little quicker most days... I bought conservative and knew it at the time, so I'm not that uncomfortable with it. And in skydiving, boredom is an entirely relative thing
--
"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?
"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?
AFFI 0
QuoteThat "you'll get bored" thing does indeed happen all the time.
Truth be told, I do find myself wishing for something a little quicker most days...
You are bored under a Pilot loaded at 1.17?
Being in the 100 jump range you most likely have not even had the oppoutrunity to learn how to fly it at a proficcient level yet...
I got a pretty nice surf under a loghtly loaded Pilot test jumping a friends who thought he may have a line trim problem...
Seems like a pretty nice canopy...
-
Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…
Don't get me wrong - I'm not that bored 
(It's certainly a very nice canopy. And that profile WL is a bit high, nowadays...)
(It's certainly a very nice canopy. And that profile WL is a bit high, nowadays...)
--
"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?
"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?
billvon 2,400
>I bought conservative and knew it at the time, so I'm not that uncomfortable with it.
That sounds like an argument to upsize, not downsize! If you are at _all_ uncomfortable with a parachute, that's a good hint to either be getting training or upsizing until you are comfortable with it.
>And that profile WL is a bit high, nowadays...
Well, the air and the ground are the same as they ever were, and no one's making people's spines, skulls or pelvises any stronger. Hitting the ground going 30mph will still kill you just as dead as it ever did, even if nowadays people jump faster canopies.
That sounds like an argument to upsize, not downsize! If you are at _all_ uncomfortable with a parachute, that's a good hint to either be getting training or upsizing until you are comfortable with it.
>And that profile WL is a bit high, nowadays...
Well, the air and the ground are the same as they ever were, and no one's making people's spines, skulls or pelvises any stronger. Hitting the ground going 30mph will still kill you just as dead as it ever did, even if nowadays people jump faster canopies.
"Uncomfortable" was a reference to wishing it went a bit quicker, not a bit slower. I only mentioned the conservativity thing to illustrate that I knew what I was getting into in advance - I should have said "not that unhappy with it".
Plenty of time to go quicker later.
Plenty of time to go quicker later.
--
"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?
"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?
Peer pressure?
It's overbearingly prevalent in today's skydiving world. I get a kick out of it. My standard comeback is:
"Have you had an HP crash landing on that handkerchief yet? No? Don't worry, you will. Even the best are not immune."
One poster's opinion said, "A smaller canopy really is a lot more fun...", thereby perpetuating the "smaller-is-better" mentality.
Those that buckle to peer pressure to downsize do so at their own risk. You would be well-advised to re-read Bill Von Novak's post about being able to handle your current canopy before downsizing.
It's overbearingly prevalent in today's skydiving world. I get a kick out of it. My standard comeback is:
"Have you had an HP crash landing on that handkerchief yet? No? Don't worry, you will. Even the best are not immune."
One poster's opinion said, "A smaller canopy really is a lot more fun...", thereby perpetuating the "smaller-is-better" mentality.
Those that buckle to peer pressure to downsize do so at their own risk. You would be well-advised to re-read Bill Von Novak's post about being able to handle your current canopy before downsizing.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Jumpah 0
I fly a 190 (WL 1.18/1), and recently got asked when I was going to stop flying a tandem rig =) It was a friendly rub, but he thought I had more jumps than I do and that I was lighter than I actually am. I might downsize to a 170 around 350 jumps, my last downsize for a while.
As for "good" reasons to downsize as a newbie...one could be to get to a WL where the pilot has penetration in even low winds. If a person is going still or backwards in a 5mph wind due to a light WL and large canopy, perhaps that is more unsafe than downsizing to a canopy that lets them go 10mph in a light wind, especially if the DZ has few outs and many hazards.
As for "good" reasons to downsize as a newbie...one could be to get to a WL where the pilot has penetration in even low winds. If a person is going still or backwards in a 5mph wind due to a light WL and large canopy, perhaps that is more unsafe than downsizing to a canopy that lets them go 10mph in a light wind, especially if the DZ has few outs and many hazards.
QuoteAs for "good" reasons to downsize as a newbie...one could be to get to a WL where the pilot has penetration in even low winds. If a person is going still or backwards in a 5mph wind due to a light WL and large canopy, perhaps that is more unsafe than downsizing to a canopy that lets them go 10mph in a light wind, especially if the DZ has few outs and many hazards.
I shouldn't have jumped in the first place.
The strongest winds I jumped in were ground gusts 35-37 with my current boat.
I did a 180 hard front riser up high, saw I was getting no penetration, as I got lower I did another hard 360 toggle turn, saw I was getting no penetration, disconnected my rsl at 150 feet, went to double fronts, then normal glide just before touching down, as soon as I did touch down I choped my main and walked away from that one. It was better to be on the ground than in the air that day. Operations at the DZ stopped for a few hours after that.
I've been working on single front riser turns (mostly 180's) but I keep coming out of them at over 100 to 150 feet, it's not "as fast" or "as fun" but those few landings I can count on one hand have made the difference between my landing not being as precise as I wanted it to be -vs- breaking myself.
All of my practice year long prepared me for the 180 front riser turn I needed to use when landing out on New Years day on a golf course. The years worth of practice allowed me to time it perfectly to land next to the golfers and their golf carts I had been wanting to do all year and say "pardon me gentlemen for interupting your play".
So instead of fucking up badly New Years day I landed safely and had a blast.
It did concern me so many others had such a bad start to this year.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I credit my sloth-like progression to old age.
Quote
As for "good" reasons to downsize as a newbie...one could be to get to a WL where the pilot has penetration in even low winds. If a person is going still or backwards in a 5mph wind due to a light WL and large canopy, perhaps that is more unsafe than downsizing to a canopy that lets them go 10mph in a light wind, especially if the DZ has few outs and many hazards.
Even lightly loaded canopies aren't as slow as people make them out to be. You're not going to stay still in full-flight in a light wind if you're not jumping a a round. You will be less able to make progress into the wind and this means you can't have fun spiraling, although it's not a safety issue with a proper jump run & spot.
I've jumped my Fox 245+J7+Raven III (about 180 pounds exit weight, .73) in 20-25 MPH winds and not gone backwards.
Para Flite spec's the 308 square foot MT-1Z at 42fps (29 MPH) with 200 pounds under it and 55fps (38 MPH) @ 300 pounds (they don't specify if this is an all-up weight with the 62 pound rig or just payload; since 200 pounds is under they're minimum all-up-weight I'd guess this translates into exit wieghts of 262 and 362 pounds for wing loadings of .85 and 1.18),
EIFF has stated that their classical accuracy canopy (jumped at under 1 pound/square foot) is good for 10m/s which is 22 MPH.
Jumpah 0
Now thats pretty interesting...on a NAV 260 (WL .8 or so for me), I was pretty much going nowhere in a 10-15 wind. The Saber 230 was a bit better, and the Saber 210 and Saber 190 (all first generation) have been great...no issues returning in any wind I see as jumpable.
What factors are in play to determine forward penetration? Canopy design? Line set length? Body position under the wing? Etc.
Really curious about this, thanks for any more info
What factors are in play to determine forward penetration? Canopy design? Line set length? Body position under the wing? Etc.
Really curious about this, thanks for any more info
Jonsmann 0
It is no law of nature that people need downsize. If you are happy with what you have then why change?
Still, there are good reasons to downsize when you can do it safely:
1. A smaller canopy is more stable in turbulent/gusty conditions
2. A smaller canopy gives better wind penetration
3. A smaller canopy is easier to pack
4. A smaller canopy allows a smaller container which makes you more aerodynamic in freefall
5. A smaller canopy gives more speed and thus potentially better landings (at least this is my experience)
However, these reasons are only valid if you are able to fly and land the canopy safely.
I have on numerous occasions advised people to take it slow because they were pushing it too hard! (as a few of them have learned the hard way!).
One expression I don't like is "canopy progression" in relation to downsizing. As though downsizing is equal to progression. Hopefully peoples stills progress as their canopies shrink!
Jacques
Still, there are good reasons to downsize when you can do it safely:
1. A smaller canopy is more stable in turbulent/gusty conditions
2. A smaller canopy gives better wind penetration
3. A smaller canopy is easier to pack
4. A smaller canopy allows a smaller container which makes you more aerodynamic in freefall
5. A smaller canopy gives more speed and thus potentially better landings (at least this is my experience)
However, these reasons are only valid if you are able to fly and land the canopy safely.
I have on numerous occasions advised people to take it slow because they were pushing it too hard! (as a few of them have learned the hard way!).
One expression I don't like is "canopy progression" in relation to downsizing. As though downsizing is equal to progression. Hopefully peoples stills progress as their canopies shrink!
Jacques
QuoteIf you dont want to downsize, thats your choice.
rest of post removed due to pa's
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Damn, this looks like it might have been quite entertaining. Oh well...
Cheers,
Jon
DougH 270
Quote
Damn, this looks like it might have been quite entertaining. Oh well...
It wasn't. I still would love to see him post his membership number!!
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P
=P
sparkie 0
well, I'm still kicking it with a pilot 210 @ 1,05 
While I know I'm up for a handkerchief 97 sqft stiletto @ 61 jumps and swooping mr. hookitlow senseless, I'll just stick with the 210 for a while.
When I see some of the long timers at my dz and the movies on skydivingmovies.com, I know that at thing point I know just enough to get down gracefully (most of the time).
So much skill left to learn, thats why I like the sport (and also finally some ppl around that also fell on their heads as babies) and intend to keep doing it for a long long time. So whats the rush?
Definitely NOT a sport where overconfidence is an asset. (so i hope hookit is either a troll or has never actually jumped but stumbled onto this forum by accident hehe)
While I know I'm up for a handkerchief 97 sqft stiletto @ 61 jumps and swooping mr. hookitlow senseless, I'll just stick with the 210 for a while.
When I see some of the long timers at my dz and the movies on skydivingmovies.com, I know that at thing point I know just enough to get down gracefully (most of the time).
So much skill left to learn, thats why I like the sport (and also finally some ppl around that also fell on their heads as babies) and intend to keep doing it for a long long time. So whats the rush?
Definitely NOT a sport where overconfidence is an asset. (so i hope hookit is either a troll or has never actually jumped but stumbled onto this forum by accident hehe)
Pulse 0
>>1. A smaller canopy is more stable in turbulent/gusty conditions
Stable how? As for being 'blown around', no they are not. You feel turbulence much more under a smaller canopy and if you're not 'on top of it' in your corrections the situation can deteriorate in a hurry.
>>2. A smaller canopy gives better wind penetration
But we should be getting out upwind anyway....right?
>>3. A smaller canopy is easier to pack
I'll bet there is a new jumper out there struggling with their first ZP that would disagree. (I don't don't think this outweighs the safety aspects.)
>>4. A smaller canopy allows a smaller container which makes you more aerodynamic in freefall
Again, I don't know if this really outweighs the safety considerations.
>>5. A smaller canopy gives more speed and thus potentially better landings
Something I hear quite often but I will not promote it. The trick to landing is achieving that descent rate of zero and then placing your feet down to start the weight transfer from your harness to your feet. With a low WL this zero descent rate lasts only a short time. I will agree, it is a little harder to judge because it may only last a half-second. With the extra speed on a highly loaded parachute, this zero descent rate lasts a little longer, giving us more time to adjust and put our feet down. Less of a chance of us placing our feet before or after that 'window' of zero descent.
I have to give this boring explanation because this same comment is made to justify low turns. "I have to make a low turn, it makes the landings better." Bull...all that tells me is I'm looking at someone who doesn't have a full understanding of what's happening.
Stable how? As for being 'blown around', no they are not. You feel turbulence much more under a smaller canopy and if you're not 'on top of it' in your corrections the situation can deteriorate in a hurry.
>>2. A smaller canopy gives better wind penetration
But we should be getting out upwind anyway....right?
>>3. A smaller canopy is easier to pack
I'll bet there is a new jumper out there struggling with their first ZP that would disagree. (I don't don't think this outweighs the safety aspects.)
>>4. A smaller canopy allows a smaller container which makes you more aerodynamic in freefall
Again, I don't know if this really outweighs the safety considerations.
>>5. A smaller canopy gives more speed and thus potentially better landings
Something I hear quite often but I will not promote it. The trick to landing is achieving that descent rate of zero and then placing your feet down to start the weight transfer from your harness to your feet. With a low WL this zero descent rate lasts only a short time. I will agree, it is a little harder to judge because it may only last a half-second. With the extra speed on a highly loaded parachute, this zero descent rate lasts a little longer, giving us more time to adjust and put our feet down. Less of a chance of us placing our feet before or after that 'window' of zero descent.
I have to give this boring explanation because this same comment is made to justify low turns. "I have to make a low turn, it makes the landings better." Bull...all that tells me is I'm looking at someone who doesn't have a full understanding of what's happening.
"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."
>absolutely fine. It's only when you push the limits without the experience
>that problems can occur.
Absolutely wrong, and I think this misconception has killed a lot of people.
Compare the two canopies to an old banger that you can slow down to 10mph and a Ferrari that you CANNOT drive slower than 50mph (or it falls off the road.) If you could slow down a Pilot 140 to the same speed as Navigator 260, then your analogy might work. But you can't.
At some points in a skydiver's student career they may make some serious mistake near the ground. Flaring high is one example. When you do that under a Manta, the canopy basically stops and comes straight down slowly. You have time to react, to think about a PLF, to decide if there's enough altitude to go to half brakes to allow some recovery. Why? Because everything comes (almost) to a stop.
Do the same thing under a much smaller canopy and it most definitely does NOT stop. It stalls and falls out of the sky. You are now falling, stalled, with a forward speed of 15mph, and you have a half second to decide what to do. If you let up on the brakes at that point (which may seem like the only thing left to try) you will likely die.
That's why they're not the same as cars. You can stop a Ferarri faster than you can stop an old clunker (better brakes.) You cannot stop a small parachute at all.
Sorry to go off like this, but I think this is one of the more dangerous misconceptions about small canopies. You cannot be conservative on them and be as safe as you were under the larger canpoy. Just doesn't work like that.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites