quade 3 #26 February 12, 2003 Ya know, I used to spout off about how lift was actually equall to 1/2 rho V^2 × coefficient of lift × area, but that really was going over people's heads. I like to think the peanut butter sandwich analogy is a bit easier for them to swallow and digest. Got milk?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #27 February 12, 2003 Wow! Ya know.....back when I was able to understand foreign languages...........I just use to guage now of...........I hope this works because the one time it didn't, man it hurt like hell Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Speer 0 #28 February 13, 2003 Thanks to all, for the replies, suggestions, and encouragement. I certainly AM enjoying skydiving, and regret the forced sabbatical. Hopefully it will be short! Although my original post was directed, I suppose, to other newbies, I do not now, or in the foreseeable future plan to offer technical recommendations on either gear or tactics...hell I'm lucky to find my way to the DZ. And just so it's clear to other newbies like me...I do NOT consider suggestions received here as instruction (and I don't think they are usually meant that way). I do use the suggestions / descriptions of incidents / warnings etc. to form questions that I WILL ASK MY INSTRUCTORS about. I was, rather, speaking of a mindset that is equally applicable to most any endeavor. Once you have gotten a few repetitions of a task successfully under your belt, there is a human tendency to minimize the amount of concentration that is required to CONTINUE to perform well. The newer we are to a given task, the greater the impact of such a lapse will be (less "muscle memory"). I have been, and will no doubt continue to be perfectly happy flying big canopies... and I couldn't give a rats butt if that troubles anyone else. When my instructors suggest that I downsize, I'll be glad to do that too. Thanks especially to Bill V for all the insight and practical parameters that define an individuals position on the "Canopy learning curve". I continue to appreciate ALL the input, it helps to form the outline for my continued education. Fly Safe, Russ Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #29 February 13, 2003 Quote>I went from a 270 to a 195 and did some good landings (~5). My > instructors then put me on a 170, which is approaching 1:1 for me. I > blew my landings. That's too bad; it sounds like you were just starting to understand landings under the 195. That kind of loading is a good loading to learn how to flare, turn low, deal with stalls etc. Any chance you could get it back for a while, while you learn that stuff? Well, I'm going down again this weekend so I'll talk it over with them then. At this stage, I think I'll either go back to the 195, or get a TA for my flare for the 170-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #30 February 13, 2003 QuoteWhy are you insulting me??? Because I don't agree with you? Thats pretty lame. Anyway if you with your 100 jumps....Feel that your right. Cool, but your not. QuoteSpeed equals lift Nope.....speed can be used to transition to lift, but lift is created by the shape of the wing, and in a smaller part to Newtons 3rd law. Still speed just ADDS to the problem...If you can't land the big canopy...you will create more problems with a faster one... But I guess I don't know anything......According to you and 100 jumps. Ron 10 years 2,600 jumps Private Pilot SEL Pro rating Yada, Yada , Yada But what do I know? Not much about physics, apparently. John PP- SEL, Instrument, Glider Professor, Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #31 February 13, 2003 Quote>But once you start flying a canopy which has some forward speed and > a flare to arrest the vertical decent, your landings will become much > better. This type of thinking has contributed to a lot of injuries and deaths in this sport. A good canopy pilot can fly any sort of canopy pretty well. A poor pilot cannot, and will have problems even with larger canopies. Saying that the poorer pilots should transition to smaller canopies quickly is very bad advice. Stick with the big canopy until you _can_ land it, then transition to a smaller canopy that requires more skill to land well. Then stick with _that_ one until you can fly it well, and so on. Having learned at a certain well known DZ in Illinois, I've never actually jumped with a large canopy (my biggest is a Sabre170). How do large canopies differ?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #32 February 13, 2003 John... go grab one of the student rigs this weekend and try it out. With a large canopy if your flare is uneven it does'nt matter as much as on a smaller canopy. Slower at the same loading blah blah blah... that stuff.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #33 February 13, 2003 QuoteJohn... go grab one of the student rigs this weekend and try it out. With a large canopy if your flare is uneven it does'nt matter as much as on a smaller canopy. Slower at the same loading blah blah blah... that stuff. The 170 WAS a student rig. All SDC's student rigs are Sabre2s, and there are no big ones. Different philosophy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #34 February 13, 2003 I think that there are a few 190's, 210's and even a 230 Sabre2 or two in the student gear area. At least there was the summer of 2001. There are a lot of big boys that learn to skydive, you can't tell me that they are going to put a 230 lb person out on a Sabre2 170 for their first solo jump (1.47 wing loading) Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #35 February 13, 2003 >How do large canopies differ? Longer flare stroke, less forward speed to kill, slower descent so a different perception of altitude, etc. Also, F111 canopies flare a bit differently than ZP's; they 'shut down' more quickly. As most people have F111 reserves, often larger than their mains, F111 flying skills can come in handy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #36 February 13, 2003 Quote But what do I know? Not much about physics, apparently. Well John....please feel free to school me on it. I tried to PM you, but you don't accept them. Try to keep it so a lay person can understand, but please do try... Ron"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
kallend 1,651 #37 February 13, 2003 QuoteQuote But what do I know? Not much about physics, apparently. Well John....please feel free to school me on it. I tried to PM you, but you don't accept them. Try to keep it so a lay person can understand, but please do try... Ron PM'd. If I start a Bernoulli thread I expect Bill will lock it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #38 February 13, 2003 >PM'd. If I start a Bernoulli thread I expect Bill will lock it. No I won't! Nerdiness is no problem here! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #39 February 13, 2003 Quote If I start a Bernoulli thread I expect Bill will lock it. Misunderstandings about the exact nature of lift are, well, understandable. I blame Wolfgang Langewiesche. The little weasel said "Newton" in 1944 and ever since then the Bernoulli v. Newton debate has raged when in fact neither is a completely adequate model of lift. I brought a copy of the book "Stick and Rudder" to my CFI check ride and had a LONG discussion with the examiner about the subject. We both agreed it was a pretty funny "debate". I also blame Barry Shiff for sticking his hand outside the car once too often when he was a kid. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #40 February 14, 2003 Quote Quote If I start a Bernoulli thread I expect Bill will lock it. Misunderstandings about the exact nature of lift are, well, understandable. I blame Wolfgang Langewiesche. The little weasel said "Newton" in 1944 and ever since then the Bernoulli v. Newton debate has raged when in fact neither is a completely adequate model of lift. I disagree . I think both are correct, in so far as they go, especially when you consider that neither Bernoulli (any of them) nor Newton ever actually addressed the topic of lift anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #41 February 14, 2003 > I think both are correct, in so far as they go, especially when you >consider that neither Bernoulli (any of them) nor Newton ever actually >addressed the topic of lift anyway. Yeah, but Kutta Effect just doesn't have the same ring to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #42 February 17, 2003 QuoteQuote>I went from a 270 to a 195 and did some good landings (~5). My > instructors then put me on a 170, which is approaching 1:1 for me. I > blew my landings. That's too bad; it sounds like you were just starting to understand landings under the 195. That kind of loading is a good loading to learn how to flare, turn low, deal with stalls etc. Any chance you could get it back for a while, while you learn that stuff? Well, I'm going down again this weekend so I'll talk it over with them then. At this stage, I think I'll either go back to the 195, or get a TA for my flare for the 170 I went back to the 195. 3 perfect landings.-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #43 February 17, 2003 Hey, could you or billvon recommend a good book on the nature of lift? Preferably with a treatment of non-rigid wings, like parachutes. I've got a bit of a background in mechanics and mathematics, so if it's fairly technical I can handle it. I'm looking for a thorough treatment of the general model, preferably mathematical, without too many pictures. Hopefully curiosity won't kill this cat -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #44 February 17, 2003 Quote> I think both are correct, in so far as they go, especially when you >consider that neither Bernoulli (any of them) nor Newton ever actually >addressed the topic of lift anyway. Yeah, but Kutta Effect just doesn't have the same ring to it. You know, I've often wondered what would happen if you put an airfoil in a flow of superfluid He3 where, presumably, the Kutta effect wouldn't occur.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 February 17, 2003 http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/ Is pretty good. Not specifically about non-rigid wings, but since they -all- use the same principles, it doesn't really make too much of a difference.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #46 February 17, 2003 Quotehttp://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/ Is pretty good. Not specifically about non-rigid wings, but since they -all- use the same principles, it doesn't really make too much of a difference. I like the heading graphic on the site. It shows clearly that the air over the top and bottom surfaces do NOT reach the trailing edge at the same time - a myth propagated by no less than the FAA in their training circulars (not to mention lots of other places).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #47 February 17, 2003 >Hey, could you or billvon recommend a good book on the nature of lift? As applied to ram-airs check out http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/highperf.pdf - it's about as dry as you can get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Speer 0 #48 May 2, 2003 YEEE-HAAA!! Well, almost three months after breaking my ankle, and being gone, I finally got in the air again! THIS TIME I concentrated on each of the parts of the dive! At 17 jumps, no room for complacency...actually I suspect that will be true at 1700 or 17000 jumps. This jump was also my first (BEER!) at another DZ. Skydive San Diego is in the midst of massive upgrades, which yesterday included paving the runway, so we took off and landed at Brown Field (where Skydive San Diego use to be). The staff handling my son and I for recurrency, did an excellent job on briefing us about jumping at Brown. Following GOOD ADVICE found here in the forums, I asked lots of questions about hazards, patterns, wind stability, landing out (lots of options around Brown), rally point etc. The experience while under the "care" of a coach has prepared me for the proper way to be a pre-second timer at a new dropzone. Thanks Andy and Matt! Thanks again to all for the continuing education here. Having been gone for much of the last three months, I have alot of reading to do... Russ Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
