RMK 3 #26 May 12, 2013 Yes, in good company. There are only three countries left on the planet not officially on the metric system - Angola, Myanmar and the US."Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,320 #27 May 12, 2013 Quote Mostly curious, but if it means a more arbitrary feel, maybe it's not the best approach Whether you use the units every day or not, the result always takes on a degree of arbitraryness. Haven't you ever thought it's a bit of a coincidence that the generally accepted first canopy 'not a student anymore' wingloading is around 1:1? Or that people often think of pro or proper crossbraced wingloadings starting around 2:1? Or the number of max wingloading to jump number charts that run like 100 jumps = 1.1:1 - 200 jumps = 1.2:1 - 300 jumps = 1.3:1 (with some pure size based modifiers)? Or is it purely serendipitous that the round numbers fall in the right places?(Honest to god, I once had someone try and convince me that 1:1 was the perfect wingloading where everything works best. For every purpose, every skydiver and every parachute. "Really? Why? Can the parachute count?")Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,292 #28 May 12, 2013 QuoteHaven't you ever thought it's a bit of a coincidence that the generally accepted first canopy 'not a student anymore' wingloading is around 1:1?Of course it is. Whatever we're used to, and grow up with, is "normal." But at least it's an automatic calculation to reach that fairly arbitrary number when you automatically know your weight in lbs, and the canopy size in sq. ft. When you have to think hard about either one, it's like a stepping stone on a path that you have to go out of your way to hit. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
erdnarob 1 #29 May 13, 2013 Here we are : 1lbs/sqf = 4.88 kg/sqm exemple given : if the load factor is 1.3 lbs/sqf is equal to 6.344 kg/sqm lbs for pounds sqf for square foot kg for kilogramme sqm for square meterLearn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cube 0 #30 May 20, 2013 We calculate wingloadings in lb/sqft and use them in conversation often. Just have to multiple one's weight by 2,205 (or 2,2; close enough). Or just use a wl-calculator from google. Everyone has a cell phone these days, and those have calculators. Not that hard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
QuickDraw 0 #31 May 20, 2013 11 years ago, Google was a second-rate search engine, and a mobile phone could only be used as a phone. Downsize until it hurts... then go up one. No 'magical' equation needed. -- Hope you don't die. -- I'm fucking winning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cube 0 #32 May 20, 2013 May I suggest different solution to the problem: Get the smallest canopy you can. Then upsize, until it stops hurting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #33 June 3, 2013 We have a simple excel spread sheet on the wall with lbs/kg on y-axis and canopy size in ft^2 on x-axis where you can look up your wing loading. All the regulations define the wing loading limitations with lbs/ft^2 so people end up using that definition.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites