Swooping a Spectre

[gus 1]

Hi guys,

I'd be interested to hear from other people who are swooping Spectres (or at least trying!). I load my 135 at about 1.3 and would like to know what people think are good swooping distances on, for example, nil wind days - my favourites!

Blues,

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[fool 0]

Hey. I'm fairly inexperienced in the entire sport, and only have about 35 or so jumps under my spectre 135 loaded at pretty much 1-1. I have received a few pointers from a very god canopy pilot on how to land it to get some decent swoop out of it, and on a no wind day, with a straight in approach, the most I have got out of it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25m. We have a 50m bowl and I level off around the edge of the bowl to get close to the cookie. Obviously hooking it in, or using front risers add to that, but I have only started to play around with lower altitude front risers. Man I love no wind days! [

S.E.X. party #1

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "f*#k, what a ride".

[gus 1]

Quote

I have received a few pointers from a very god canopy pilot on how to land it to get some decent swoop out of it

Well don't keep them all to yourself!
From what I've experienced it all seems to be about smooth inputs: letting up on the risers smoothly and doing the same when flaring - that always seems to get the best results.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[freeflir29 0]

I only have one jump on a Spec 170 and it was on a windy day. However with a long gentle carve I got about 40 Ft even though it was windy. I was loaded around 1.3.

[Skydive2 1]

I've got a few jumps on a Spectre 170 loaded at 1.2. I was kind of suprised that the swoop I got out of it on a no wind day. Not near as far as the Sabre 150 that I was jumping at the time...but not bad.
just my .02 cents

Lance

[drenaline 0]

Quote

I was kind of suprised that the swoop I got out of it on a no wind day.

What you did? carve or hook and how much was the distance?

HISPA 21
www.panamafreefall.com

[jdfreefly 1]

When I had around 100 jumps, I was jumping a spectre 170. I hooked the hell out of it!!!!

Although it is an extremely forgiving canopy, keep in mind that it can still kill you! I nearly managed to break myself under it more than once!

With that said, have fun and keep going at a comfortable pace. And for the record, a good swoop under any canopy, is one where you finish and think, "Damn that was fun!" If you enjoyed it, it was good. It is when they start getting boring.....

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

I'd be interested to hear from other people who are swooping Spectres (or at least trying!).

The Spectre has a very short recovery arc compared to a canopy that is designed for swooping, like a Crossfire for example. This is evident when you try simple 90-degree front riser turns; the Spectre flattens out quickly while the Crossfire continues to dive until the pilot flattens the glide with the rear risers or toggle input. The over loaded Spectre is ground hungry and unable to attain the speeds required for a safe swoop without having to riser turn too close to the ground due to this recovery arc.

I think you are over loading your Spectre beyond its intended design limits. Look over the charts at PD to confirm this issue. Maybe you're ready for a different kind of canopy flight.

[PhreeZone 15]

I know a few of the bigger names in camera flying are jumping Spectre 97's because of their flying style and the ability of the all round canopy. A Spectre 97 flown at a fairly light loading by a female pilot kicked the boys rears at last years Pond Swooping nationals. She was able to out swoop Stilettos, Cobalts, Crossfires and crossbraced stuff loaded much higher. It all depends on the pilot input and skill.

A Spectre has a better glide rate then an orginal Sabre so there should be no issue in swooping it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[hobbes4star 0]

with just rear riser input i have been getting 15 to 20 ft swoopes. i am loading at 1.14. just doing simple 90 with rear risers or a long 90 with fronts.
just my 0.02

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . and unable to attain the speeds required for a safe swoop . . .

Uh . . . lemme get this straight . . . SPEED equalls safe swoop?

Y'all gotta be kidding?

More speed may mean a lot of things, but safer isn't usually one of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cobaltdan 0]

hey phree,

"out swoop stillettos, cobalts, crossfires, and crossbraced....."

you have got to be kidding.... bridget is a decent swooper but was severly limited by her past choice of a spectra for competition. the only reason she even placed was because of receiving the highest style points in the comp when she jumped topless and chowed big time...

spectre are nice canopies but they are not out swooping anything except student canopies, tri's and jalbert's.

btw a spectre and stilletto have identical airfoils, just different planforms.

sincerely,

dan <><>

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[maretus 0]

"A Spectre 97 flown at a fairly light loading by a female pilot kicked the boys rears at last years Pond Swooping nationals. She was able to out swoop Stilettos, Cobalts, Crossfires and crossbraced stuff loaded much higher."
--------------------------------

Did she really ? That sounds like awesome piece of canopy flying. Do you happen to remember any results for her, example in distance ?

http://www.ufufreefly.com

[PhreeZone 15]

Last years Parachutist would have the results, I do remember a pic of her doing a nice double toe drag through the swoop lane. Some of the PD pilots I've spoke to can swoop a Spectre just as far as a Sabre. There is one jumper at my DZ that is getting good 15-20 yard swoops on a 170 with just a 90 turn to final. He's gota lot of natural skill to get that smooth of an approach but Bridget was in one of the Para- Pro meets so I'd look on thier site for details.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Uh . . . lemme get this straight . . . SPEED equalls safe swoop?

An over-loaded canopy like a Spectre at 1.3 requires very precise timing in the flare if you are flying it on a straight in approach whereas a little riser input for some extra speed will allow the pilot to flatten the glide considerably from a little higher up.

[quade 3]

Quote

An over-loaded canopy like a Spectre at 1.3 requires very precise timing in the flare if you are flying it on a straight in approach whereas a little riser input for some extra speed will allow the pilot to flatten the glide considerably from a little higher up.

Or so you say. I have not found it difficult at all to time the flair of a Spectre loaded at 1.3:1 and I have done so just about every weekend for years.

I fail to see how doing so higher and with more speed could be considered safer. In fact, by adding more speed into the equation, aren't you making the timing of the flair even more critical?

If you want to say that adding speed will make the swoop more fun, well that's a personal opinion and by all means go for it, but safer just doesn't make any sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Or so you say. I have not found it difficult at all to time the flair of a Spectre loaded at 1.3:1 and I have done so just about every weekend for years.

Well, looking at your profile, I see that you are a Perris jumper, which means easier landings with the head wind available there. I'm jumping in the forest of the Pacific Northwest, which always has no-wind conditions below the tree tops. I've found that a little extra speed means an easier landing.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

In fact, by adding more speed into the equation, aren't you making the timing of the flair even more critical?

I would actually have to disagree with you there. With more speed it gives you more energy to work with. The flare can be initiated farther off the ground and gradually brought in. Unlike a "nominal speed approach" where all the energy must be used at precisely the right time in order to have a decent landing. I think more speed gives more lee way. Just my perception and .02....

[JFC3 0]

To be sure I'm no expert but if more energy was key to nice landing why would downwinders leave so many with shame-stains on their rigs?

"Five days? But I'm angry now!"

[quade 3]

Clay --

I think you're confusing the terms nominal and minimal. Nominal simply means normal.

For just about any airplane the normal recommended approach speed is 1.3 times the stall speed of the aircraft in the landing configuration. For a short field landing, the pilot might want to reduce that to 1.1 times the stall speed and normally this would be considered the minimum airspeed for an approach to landing in any airplane. Certainly an airspeed slower than that and you might be asking for trouble. It's very poor form to stall an airplane (or parachute for that matter) a few feet off the ground. I do not recommend that anyone sink in heavily loaded Spectres on a regular basis -- you'll just get hurt enventually.

A normal straight in approach under a normal ram-air parachute is well above either of the two speeds given in the above example.

When I asked;

Quote

In fact, by adding more speed into the equation, aren't you making the timing of the flair even more critical?

It wasn't because I didn't already know the answer. It was because I was trying to get the original poster to rethink what he had just said.

Here's my line of reasoning just based on decent rate.

Let's say a normal straight in approach gives a decent rate of 1,000 feet per minute and a front risered approach gives a decent rate of 1,250 feet per minute.

Let's say that with either, the point above the ground you'd ideally flair at varies, but has a tolerance window of about 1 foot.

Doesn't it make sense then that you'll spend more time in that window with a slower decent rate?

In fact, that is exactly the case.

Additional airspeed beyond what is required for a normal touchdown is only a waste of engery as far as timing and safety are concerned.

Now, if somebody wants to say that a front riser approach is more fun, then that's a personal opinion with which I can't argue. However, to say that it is more safe, simply isn't true.

In fact, it's more dangerous because the timing of the flair is more critical and you're traveling over the ground at a higher rate of speed for a longer period of time. Further, it's far more difficult to accurately judge where you will eventually come to a full and complete stop.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Well, I think you'd need to visit Perris to truely appreciate all the different weather conditions we have. Yes, we have winds on some days, but we also have days without any wind at all.

We also have some density-altitude issues that I'm guessing you don't have to deal with very much.

However, all of that said, the wind in and of itself, normally shouldn't really be a factor in the timing of your flair. Obviously under extreme wind conditions (you backing up under canopy for instance) they might be, but not normally.

When you say "I've found that a little extra speed means an easier landing." What exactly do you mean by that? I'm kind of curious.

Do you mean a "softer" landing, one in which you come to a full stop and gently place your toes upon the ground without having to run out the landing? I certainly don't see how having an excess of speed at the beginning of the flair would help anyone accomplish that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think you're confusing the terms nominal and minimal

No...not at all...I meant a "normal" approach. Full flight straight in, neither a braked approach nor with any turns that build speed. Just the canopy flying at it's "trim" speed.

Quote

Doesn't it make sense then that you'll spend more time in that window with a slower decent rate?

Ummm...not in my opinion. I think with more speed the window is larger. You can start early with very light input....or if you wait too long you have more power in the flare. (Yeah Yeah...speed doesn't equal lift but in the case of not so heavily loaded Spectres I think it's safe to say that with more speed you'll have a more powerful flare) The extra speed gives you more energy to work with. If you make a braked or even normal approach you are robbing potential energy from the canopy therefor making your flight controls less effective. I like to start the landing sequence with LOTS of extra energy and then use it however I need to...

[konradptr 0]

Re: [freeflir29] Swooping a Spectre - NEW [In reply to] Quote | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be sure I'm no expert but if more energy was key to nice landing why would downwinders leave so many with shame-stains on their rigs?


I think that you are missing the point. If you are under canopy, brakes released, just hanging in the harness with the wind blowing 15 mph, no matter what direction you turn, you are still going 20 mph under canopy, or whatever the canopy flies at. . You might however be doing 20 mph under the canopy and 5 mph across the ground, or 35 mph across the ground. The canopy doesn't care, it doesn't feel the wind, just like there is no wind when you are in a balloon. Regardless what direction you turn, you are still flying through the air at 20 mph. The reason it is nice to land into the wind if you are a student, is that as you are going forward through the air at 20 mph, the wind is filling the canopy with air at 15 mph, resulting in the 5 mph that you see... Why do downwinders always wreck? Because their canopy is still flying the same, and producing the same amount of lift as the into-the-wind jumper, but his groundspeed is 7 times as high. But again, the canopy doesn't care about that, the two canopies are still producing the same amount of lift, drag, performance, etc... Hope this helps,

Peter

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[PhreeZone 15]

>I like to start the landing sequence with LOTS of extra energy and then use it however I need to...

Now say you carry all that extra energy through a no flair landing. What is more likely to injure you with no flair.. a normal approach or a high energy one? That certinally makes the higher speed one seem less safe to me. Speed does not equal safety, speed equals energy (NOTE not lift)... if the energy is used properly then everyone is happy. If the energy is not utilized properly then it leads to greater injuries. Another thing to think about is converting lots of energy into instant lift... that will usually result into a stall. If you pop up to 10 feet then stall that hardly seems safe to me...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

)... if the energy is used properly then everyone is happy.

I have a pretty good record so far. I think I have fallen down twice in 100+ jumps on this canopy. For me...extra speed is good!!!