front riser and turbulance

[rendezvous 0]

how do turbulance and front riser landings match up. Is there an increased risk of turbulance causing some part of the canopy to collapse while the front risers are being held down ?

[quade 3]

Turbulance can cause any canopy to collapse.
Going faster toward the ground will not help the situation.
Reshaping the wing by pulling on the front risers will also not help the situation.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[AiRpollUtiOn 0]

Doesn't an increase in airspeed result in a higher rigidity of the airfoil???
Isn't a small canopy less susceptible to turbulence then a larger one (with the same weight hanging under it?)
Not sure, would like comments...
You're absolutely right when saying any canopy will be affected by turbulence btw.
Will jump for beer, bs AiRpollUtiOn

[quade 3]

Quote

Doesn't an increase in airspeed result in a higher rigidity of the airfoil???

Yes, to a point, but that doesn't mean it's a wise idea to go through a dust devil just because you can go 20 knots faster than somebody doing a "normal" approach.

Quote

Isn't a small canopy less susceptible to turbulence then a larger one (with the same weight hanging under it?)

Correct again, but the smaller canopy also has to fly at a faster speed to create the same amount of lift at the same angle of attack. Would you rather biff in due to turbulance while going 15 knots or 30 knots?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[prost 0]

Isn't a small canopy less susceptible to turbulence then a larger one (with the same weight hanging under it?)>
Think about this though. If you hit turbulance and drop 3 feet under a manta you might still stand up the landing. If you drop 3 feet under a VX loaded at 2.4 to one you are going to the hospitol. There is a time to not hook it and just land as safely as possible. learning when not to hook a canopy is the most important skill to learn for hook turners.
William

[rgoper 0]

**There is a time to not hook it and just land as safely as possible. learning when not to hook a canopy is the most important skill to learn for hook turners.**
this is one of the most intelligent statements i've heard in a long time, thanks william. i had a low time jumper ask me at the dz just this past weekend how to initiate a front riser manuever, i knew he was a low timer, and thus asked him his jump numbers, he advised. i simply refused to tell him, and told him just that way. now, i want to make it clear that i am NOT a "swoop" expert, or a "novice" even, but i can pull them off, but not good enough to give advice to someone else, so i figured to tell someone in his position to wait until at least 150-200 jumps before trying anything like that. the bad thing about this is, when a low time jumper sees the "swoopers" doing the 180 snaps/dives/surfs, they make visual observation(s) and then try to pull them off without further consultation with a LEARNED colleague. always seek advice before trying these canopy flying teqniques yourself, i did. "it's all about living" Richard
"Gravity Is My Friend"

[TEB6363 0]

I think it is best to get off the front risers (or rear if you are "running" back) and let the canopy ride the turbulence in it's "stock" configuration. Get ready with those breaks if you have to steer through a collapsed end cell, or the canopy needs some breaks to help stay inflated (like 1/4 brakes).
And do as others have said, Find a safe open place to land and save the fun for later.
Blue Skies
:::OK, Canopy is Open, No Traffic Around, .. Why are these "Extra" Lines Draping Down??, Damn!

[AiRpollUtiOn 0]

Quade, I know that I am not even close to being an expert canopy pilot (look at my number of jumps...), I do have some theoretical background in aerodynamics however.
With my post i was in no way meaning to suggest using front riser manoeuvres in turbulance, i was only reacting to the original question: "is there an increased risk of turbulance causing some part of the canopy to collapse while the front risers are being held down?"
When there is a lot of turbulance, I land with a rather long straight-in approach, and when my canopy then acts too funky for me, I won't go up again before I have seen a couple of loads land with a definite improvement in the conditions.
I rather sit out a few jumps than 2 months of jumping, like the rest of us I suppose.
To stay on the issue, front risers and turbulance, I'd like to tell a thing I saw when I was about 13 years old (10 years ago)
My dad (yup, I'm one of those guys who was dragged to DZ's his entire childhood) was hanging under his canopy.
The drop wazsall but perfect, because he was hanging over the woods downwind of the landing area.
When he came at the edge of these woods, an intersection between woods and tarmac, his canopy collapsed completely, then opened again. At the time he was waaaaayyyyy too low to try to go for a reserve procedure, all he could do was try to "pump" it open again, which it luckily did. By the time his canopy was open again he must have been between 150-300 feet.
The canopy he was using was a 250 or something, loaded at 0.7 to 0.8 I believe.
If he had been front risering to clear those woods, maybe the canopy wouldn't have collapsed because of its higher rigidity.
He didn't jump that canopy again, went and baught a falcon 210.
So my reply was absolutely not meant to say: hey guys, if you wanna be safe in turbulance, go for front risers all the way up to flare, au contraire!
I'm also trying to say that some people don't know what they're talking about when suggesting first canopies after student status to guys or girls that are looking to buy their first rig.
The only thing I was told was: don't go smaller than 170ft².
In my case this wasn't bad advise, but what about someone that weighs 110 lbs???
is a 0.65 wing loading always safe???
I just heard that the VVP, the flemmish parachutist association is finally going to make new rules that put wing loadings first in their rules that say what canopy people with a limited jumps are allowed to use, lots of inexperienced people bouncing under too small and fast canopies here as well...
Maybe I'm going bad as well, flying a sabre 150 loaded at 1.3 with few less than 100 jumps (beers this weekend by the way, 3 more to go...), but I'm confident flying it, not OVERconfident however.
I think going to small is very risky business, but I think that a lot of people don't realise that too large canopies are dangerous as well.
I got a bit lost here, so lemme conclude by saying that where I jump, with a lot of variety in surface (woods, tarmac, sand) causing turbulance in hot weather, I go for my front risers to clear those surface transitions, but I do go for regular straight-in landings without touching my fronts.
Better safe than sorry...
Will jump for beer, bs AiRpollUtiOn

[quade 3]

Gear manufacturers have, for years, recommended not only maximum wing loadings but minimum wing loadings as well.
So, yes, being too lightly loaded is a bad thing.
However, I don't think that's what the original question was about. quade
http://futurecam.com

[kallend 1,679]

<<< I do have
some theoretical background in aerodynamics however.>>>
In that case you know what the stagnation point is on the airfoil, right? Having the stagnation point at the opening is what pressurizes the canopy (Bernoulli - that's the point of highest pressure). You want to avoid having the stagnation point move outside the area of the ram-air openings, particularly onto the top skin. Some canopies have the openings right at the front, others slightly underneath the leading edge. So it depends on the canopy design...

[AiRpollUtiOn 0]

You're right, I guess I got a little carried away, I just don't want anyone to think that I would suggest high performance landings in tricky conditions.
Will jump for beer, bs AiRpollUtiOn

[billvon 2,471]

>The canopy he was using was a 250 or something, loaded at 0.7 to 0.8 I believe
>If he had been front risering to clear those woods, maybe the canopy wouldn't
>have collapsed because of its higher rigidity.
Or it would have collapsed into a worse state and not recovered, since canopies are _not_ designed to reinflate with the front risers pulled down. (Paragliders have the same problem, but about ten times worse since they are much less stable to begin with.) If you do find yourself in a collapse, the best way to reinflate the canopy is to either put the canopy in the same state that it is during opening (i.e. toggles down 1/4 to 1/2) or you can "pump" the toggles. I think both give similar results.
-bill von