Coaches/riggers recommend smaller first canopy than CSPA manual. Who do I listen to?

[FrontRoyalty 0]

Understood and agreed. I guess kinda compared it to someone with a learners permit wanting a Ferrari thinking it would help them get to school on time.

[JohnMitchell 14]

TheRealDBish

Thats part of the reason I'd like a smaller canopy with a better glide ratio.

Smaller canopies don't necessarily have a better glide ratio than large ones. There are many factors on that, such as planform, airfoil design, and line trim, among others.

Depends on where you are on a bad spot.

Upwind of the target with the wind to your back? The big canopy will keep you up in the tailwind longer, helping you get back.

Downwind of the target fighting a headwind? Yes, the higher forward speed of the smaller canopy should give you the advantage there. Talk to an instructor about the technique of using front risers when trying to get more penetration into the wind.

And ask, after each off landing, why you landed off. If they keep saying "bad spot", discuss with them what you need to do to get a good spot.

[JohnMitchell 14]

FrontRoyalty

Understood and agreed. I guess kinda compared it to someone with a learners permit wanting a Ferrari thinking it would help them get to school on time.

Good point.

[ShotterMG 0]

"Talk to an instructor about the technique of using front risers when trying to get more penetration into the wind. "

Another example of why NOT to learn skydiving on the internet.

[Di0 1]

JohnMitchell

Smaller canopies don't necessarily have a better glide ratio than large ones. There are many factors on that, such as planform, airfoil design, and line trim, among others.

In fact, in 0-winds, they generally speaking don't. Glide Ratio being a function of aerodynamic parameters (L/D), at least as a first order approximation, is not affected by wing loading.
Yes, you will fall faster, but covering the same path.
Also yes, therefore when wind comes into play, your glide ration will be affected.

Also, yes, this is strictly true for rigid wings, but canopies don't exactly follow this rule because a higher the W/L will also change other parameters of the canopy, like trim, shape, curvature and angle of attack, hence this is true only as a first order approximation for non rigid wings.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Di0

*** Smaller canopies don't necessarily have a better glide ratio than large ones. There are many factors on that, such as planform, airfoil design, and line trim, among others.

In fact, in 0-winds, they generally speaking don't. Glide Ratio being a function of aerodynamic parameters (L/D), at least as a first order approximation, is not affected by wing loading.
Yes, you will fall faster, but covering the same path.
Also yes, therefore when wind comes into play, your glide ration will be affected.

Yep, notice I didn't mention "wing loading" as being a factor in the glide, or L/D, ratio. It's counter-intuitive to many, that a wing doesn't glide farther with less weight than more.

I was trying to impart that the advice of many, that "highly loaded canopies glide farther", is not true.. It may be the big one is best; it may be the small one is best, but it's independent, for the most part, of wing loading.

In fact, many of the cross-braced canopies optimized for swooping glide worse than most sport canopies. A big factor in that is the line trim.

Counterintuitive like the fact that airplanes, including jump planes, climb faster when you shift the CG towards the rear limit. I cringe when I hear pilots say "Move up forward so the plane will climb better."

[JohnMitchell 14]

ShotterMG

"Talk to an instructor about the technique of using front risers when trying to get more penetration into the wind. "

Another example of why NOT to learn skydiving on the internet.

Did I give some bad advice there?

[Di0 1]

JohnMitchell

Yep, notice I didn't mention "wing loading" as being a factor in the glide, or L/D, ratio. It's counter-intuitive to many, that a wing doesn't glide farther with less weight than more.

Counterintuitive like the fact that airplanes, including jump planes, climb faster when you shift the CG towards the rear limit. I cringe when I hear pilots say "Move up forward so the plane will climb better."

Exactly! :)
That's why I mentioned it, because a lot of people don't really understand how that works or what affect your glide ratio. It helps that I'm an aerospace engineer, so I knew what's behind it before I even started skydiving.
Skydiving is finally giving me a chance to merge my academic background with my passions, I couldn't ask for anything better honestly.

As for the CG of a plane, the only real reason a pilot would want weight shifted toward the front of the plane is during take-off and slow jumpruns, because it reduces the possibility of a stall when the control margin is reduced. But during climb up, as airplanes are designed to have a natural pitch-down momentum, there is no reason to shift people forward (again, unless you're planning on approaching stall speeds, which would only happen in the STEEPEST climb configuration, but not during FASTEST climb configuration). Ideally, a plane would climb the fastest and in the most efficient way with the smallest control margin (defined as the distance between the CG and the Center of pressure possible), even though of course this would introduce a whole new set of problems, like pilots not being able to fly the plane unless they have a military jet background and/or we introduce a SAS on jump-planes. LoL. Which, eventually, we will.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Di0

It helps that I'm an aerospace engineer,

I'm just a student of flight.

Quote

As for the CG of a plane, the only real reason a pilot would want weight shifted toward the front of the plane is during take-off and slow jumpruns, because it reduces the possibility of a stall when the control margin is reduced.

One reason for moving the CG aft for takeoff is during STOL operations. Aircraft will lift off quicker at a lower airspeed.

I'm sure you'll agree that, as a general rule of aerodynamics, stability costs you performance; performance costs you stability.

[Di0 1]

JohnMitchell

I'm just a student of flight.

In all honesty, I am too. I love everything flight-mechanics related.
I only have a fancy piece of paper which certifies that. LoL
I learned/relearned a lot that I had forgot or overlooked since I started skydivibng.

Quote

One reason for moving the CG aft for takeoff is during STOL operations. Aircraft will lift off quicker at a lower airspeed.

I'm sure you'll agree that, as a general rule of aerodynamics, stability costs you performance; performance costs you stability.

AMEN.
I couldn't agree more.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[fcajump 153]

An often Parachutist published writer recently wrote an article discussing NOT buying the canopy you will want later, but get the conservitive canopy you need now...

Ah, how times have changed ... 20+ years ago, he was also my DZO/Rigger/Instructor, and pushing me the same way that you are being pushed. In those F-111 lower-performing days and weighing about what you do, he wanted me to get a 210, but I wanted a 260. Said I would be quickly frustrated/bored with it... he was right... kinda... I did learn all it could do and got bored with it after 10 years.

You will not get the same penetration.
You will not get the same speed.
But you will be more likely to get through your early years with fewer injuries and fewer occasions where the canopy is flying you (rather than the other way around...)

I have since moved to a 230 and 210 (Spectre) and also... um... increased my wingloading...

But I've never regreted starting conservative. It really helped when my spotting was still rough or my luck needed a boost to keep me out of a tight spot.

Just my $.02,
JW

PS - still work with that former (to me) DZO/Rigger/Instructor... nice guy, and has shown me that even experts can learn and evolve their way of thinking.

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[JohnMitchell 14]

ShotterMG

"Talk to an instructor about the technique of using front risers when trying to get more penetration into the wind. "

Another example of why NOT to learn skydiving on the internet.

Darn, I was really hoping to get some intelligent feedback on why you think talking to an instructor about using front risers is such a bad idea. I'm always up for new ideas. . .

Still don't have any?

[JohnMitchell 14]

fcajump

I have since moved to a 230 and 210 (Spectre) and also... um... increased my wingloading...

But I've never regreted starting conservative. It really helped when my spotting was still rough or my luck needed a boost to keep me out of a tight spot.

About a decade ago I upsized my main from a 135 to a 150. My creaky knees really appreciate it. And my reserve is a 190. I've had to land it off the DZ a few times, even once in a front yard. It was nice to have that much canopy over my head, knowing I could squeeze into a tight spot without injury.

Quote

still work with that former (to me) DZO/Rigger/Instructor... nice guy, and has shown me that even experts can learn and evolve their way of thinking.

That's how you become expert, IMO. If you're not open to learning, you're just slowly going downhill in this world.

[DrSher 0]

Thanks for this post. I was going to ask much the same as well.

I remember as fresh AFF graduate and not even gotten full license yet, I bought gear, got back to home DZ and most thought my main "was too big".

I honestly (with 130 jumps on it) never had a band landing and the landing area was narrow with crags on two direction and a low cliff in a third, so the in-flight always had to be good unless you hook turned in.

The worst thing was a Brit during my AFF training time who broke the forearm after a landing on 2nd day in Ampurio Brava. A French RW guy broke his leg into the hedge right by the hangar, if anyone recall.

I had a reserve pull on my 40th or so jump down there and still made it back fine in the Swift Even the free bag and main ended up close.

all this has convinced me that a larger size is good idea. Finally, I know this is not a BASE forum, but someone talked about their canopies tending to be larger now. I mean even LARGER than 200 SQF for a 200# guy?

There is still lots of time to learn it..

[JohnMitchell 14]

DrSher

I honestly (with 130 jumps on it) never had a bad landing and the landing area was narrow with crags on two direction and a low cliff in a third, so the in-flight always had to be good unless you hook turned in.

Sounds like a place where I'd love having a bigger canopy too.

Quote

The worst thing was a Brit during my AFF training time who broke the forearm after a landing on 2nd day in Ampurio Brava. A French RW guy broke his leg into the hedge right by the hangar, if anyone recall.

I've done my share of first aid on very experienced people that get just a little "behind the curve" on just one landing. .
I like to have a fat margin of error.

Quote

Finally, I know this is not a BASE forum, but someone talked about their canopies tending to be larger now. I mean even LARGER than 200 SQF for a 200# guy?

I'm not a base jumper but have been around for a while. In design, BASE canopies are very similar to earlier square canopy designs. 7 cells, not 9, lower aspect ratio, and more porous, non-zero porosity material, among other design factors, make them more reliable than modern main canopies. Their similarities to our square reserves are obvious.

With that said, the factors that make them more reliable make them land not as softly. In the 70's, one of the most popular canopies was the Stratocloud 7 cell. At 230 sq. ft., it was easy to sink into the pea gravel when shooting accuracy. The Parafoil 252 was even bigger, at, yes, 252 sq. feet. It was not unusual to see 150 pound people, or less, jumping those size canopies, especially for shooting accuracy.

[jumpsalot-2 2]

.75 to 1 is a common BASE wingload. Using your full dressed with rig exit weight

Life is short ... jump often.

[fcajump 153]

ShotterMG

"Talk to an instructor about the technique of using front risers when trying to get more penetration into the wind. "

Another example of why NOT to learn skydiving on the internet.

I am always up to hearing new ideas/information... please clarify which part of this you object to...

Front Risers when flying into the wind to increase penetration and distance covered seems to be a sound choice in general. There are of course several things that should be considered such as not landing while still on fronts, proper handle technique so as to not loose your toggles, practice at altitude, the technique is not similarly useful when flying with the wind, etc...

All those caviots and ways to safely practice would then naturally lead (especially when discussing online) to the recommendation that the reader should talk with an instructor about the details in this technique.

Was it the technique you were objecting to, or the notion that an instructor could assist?

Just curious,
JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[Ron 7]

Quote

The PIM (Canadian SIM) says that for someone of my size (6'5" 215lb) I should be jumping no less than a 230sqft until ~180 jumps. I intended to follow this until everyone at my dz said that I should get a 210 (riggers/coaches) or even a 190 (other people).

The PIM, riggers/coaches/other people will not be jumping the canopy. YOU will.

No one likes to think they are below average, but half of the population is..... It is YOUR life on the line, YOU will have to land it off, YOU will suffer the consequences of a bad choice.

In the end, only you can make the choice. But almost no one gets hurt from jumping a canopy too big.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnMitchell 14]

fcajump

Was it the technique you were objecting to, or the notion that an instructor could assist?

Just curious,
JW

Me too.

All I'm hearin' is crickets . . .

[chuckakers 370]

tkhayes

http://parachutistonline.com/feature/downsizing-checklist

A great article and things you should be able to do prior to changing the size of the canopy you are flying.

Also has exercises to go practice and demonstrate these things.

The first 4 are essential. Number 6 is good as well.

5 and 7 in my opinion are for more advanced flying and certainly not something you should be doing at 30 jumps.

But there is a lot going into the decision of what size and type of parachute you want to buy. size is only one factor. I think a 230 is fine for you, and yes you will probably get bored with it prior to 180 jumps.

But you probably will also not be laying on the ground with a bone sticking out of your leg either.

Listen to TK, kid. He's seen it all.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Di0 1]

tkhayes

http://parachutistonline.com/feature/downsizing-checklist

A great article and things you should be able to do prior to changing the size of the canopy you are flying.

Also has exercises to go practice and demonstrate these things.

The first 4 are essential. Number 6 is good as well.

5 and 7 in my opinion are for more advanced flying and certainly not something you should be doing at 30 jumps.

I like those checklist but I always tell people that are more toward the "am I qualified to fly the current canopy?" then a "am I ready to downsize?" checklist. If you wish, it's a necessary set of skills, but not sufficient.
Realistically, with the exceptions of 5 and 7, those are maneuvers you should try as soon as you get a new canopy, in the first 5-10 practice hop and pops with it, and depending on what your goals are, 5 and 7 should be attempted too. They have nothing to do with downsizing per-se, adjusting the flare direction and being able to flat turn decently are basic survival skills on your present canopy.
If you're not comfortable with those skills, you should get coaching on your current canopy asap.

Ok, 5 and 7 are part of the "inducing speed" process, so they're kind of a set of their own, but if you don't want to induce speed then why do you even bother downsizing beyond a certain point (this is not aimed at the OP, more of loud thinking in general)?

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[riggerrob 558]

An "A" skydiver who weighs 215 pounds - plus gear - would be wise to load a canopy no more than 1 pound per square foot ..... 330-ish square feet.
Students, BASE jumpers and precision landing competitors load their canopies lighter. 0.7 is a popular wing-loading for those specialized jumps, so a 200 pound skydiver would be healthier with a 300 square foot BASE canopy.
Yes, you can skydive most BASE canopies. You just need to pack them into large student rigs.

[kelpdiver 2]

TheRealDBish

I'd love to try out some rentals but my dropzone is tiny and only has the student rigs for rental. One person said I can borrow their container that should fit me and put in another persons 206 sqft that they offered up. I'd like to give that a shot to see how I like a smaller canopy, here's hoping I have a nice landing I guess.

did you make a decision?

You're right to look for gear - particularly at small places (and even at larger ones when we're talking about suitable rigs for the 215lbers), relying on rentals means waiting longer between jumps. Students often get precedence since their jumps have to align with their instructors (and they're paying a double hundred bucks a jump!).

I was your weight when I got to your situation. It was hard finding a complete package - I ended up buying a new container, but found a Triathlon 220 used, and then later moved to a new Tri 210 ,and finally a Pilot 210. When I stepped away, I had absolutely no trouble selling it at an excellent price. It was a bit remarkable - nearly no depreciation after 5 years.

There's a key thing to keep in mind - newish rigs for 'big boys' will always sell easy. So you shouldn't worry too much about multiple downsizes in the same container. If you get to that point, get a new container. Potentially with the thinner fabrics that came out in the last 10 years, you can get get bigger canopies into a smaller space, and then downsize to the regular fabric. Maybe...talk to the gear vendors. But again, don't optimize for a future maybe over the current.

I found a pretty big difference in difficulty between a WL of 1.1 and 1.2, though I'll say I was a poor flarer. I think the 1.1 target is a more sensible one for the first rig. 1.2 + one other factor (hot day, DZ at altitude, zero wind) can equal a bad tumbling landing, or worse if you misread the wind direction.