Just a story of my accomplishments in landing :)

[jakee 1,254]

All that typing and we weren't even argueing!

I guess I'll have to go do something productive now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Hey, in like 4 or 5 years, when I learn how to swoop, providing you and I are on our way to becoming old skydivers, I'll see you there

I have Chuck and Ian in my sights (albeit at a great distance right now) and when I start beating their sorry asses on the PST, then it'll be time to not listen to them (and better yet steal Chuck's lunch money). But in the meantime, these two blokes are qualified PST members and I'm not (I figure it'll take me hundreds and hundreds of more jumps to get there, if I get there at all). And until that time, when they say something on these forums, I can only do myself some credit by listening to them.

Swooping rocks!!! I hope I don't crater.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

your canopy will always stall at the same amount of tail deflection, regardless of your speed. This is why high speed stalls are possible.

I'm no canopy guru (some respectable canopy guru step in here any time), but high speed stalls on a wing are caused by abrupt attitude changes. As a licensed pilot as you claim to be, you should know this. Why is a canopy any different?

WRONG, high speeds stalls are not caused by abrupt manuvers. They are caused by pitching up too high (pulling the yoke back to far). This is equivalent to pulling your toggles down to far. Have you never hooked it low and had to dig out? This is done by stabbing the toggles (or some might call it an abrupt input.) This is something that many don't like to talk about but its very real. When you stab you toggles to dig out, you can only bring them to the point just before your stall point. If you pass it, it will stall. If you pass it moving at a high speed, you will have a high speed stall. If you pass it after you slowed down, you will have a low speed stall. The bottom line is that any particular canopy will always stall, at the same tail deflection. The reason for this is because of the way the parachute flies in the first place, the shape of the wing, Bernouli's principal. The difference of pressure from the bottom of the wing to the top of the wing.
For whoever said that a canopy can fly backwards, thats funny. A canopy just like any wing must have a positive true airspeed. If your headwind is more than your true airspeed you may appear to be moving backwards but you really moving foward through the air. (Just the air is moving toward you faster than you are going foward through it.) With an accuracy canopy this would be more common only because the foward speed on an accuracy canopy is so much less, and with toggle input that its easier to have a situation of more headwind than foward speed.
When you don't know what your doing, being abrupt with controls it makes it easier to stall. This is like telling somebody that they need to let a clutch out slowly to avoid stalling the car. Its total bogus. Go to any drag race and watch how quickly they are letting out the clutch. Its just that when your going to pop the clutch, you need to know what you doing. This is no different.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[PhreeZone 15]

Care to explain how a BASE canopy can back away from objects if the pilot opens facing one then?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Kris 0]

Quote

Care to explain how a BASE canopy can back away from objects if the pilot opens facing one then?

Forget it...I doubt he gets it. I've also seen accuracy canopies do some nice backwards flying in order to stay with the target. But it wasn't loaded at 4:1 so it doesn't count.

A wing doesn't have to be pitched up sharply to stall, although that is one scenario, Bruno. Any wing can stall at any speed at any attitude.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

WRONG, high speeds stalls are not caused by abrupt manuvers. They are caused by pitching up too high (pulling the yoke back to far).

I could have worded things a tad better, but WTF do you think I meant by abrupt maneuvers. Now I have no arguments about digging it out of the corner as you are correct in how you explained things and rear riser landings are when we are at the highest risk of high speed stalls. But you are dead wrong about not being able to fly you canopy backwards and I'd love to hear to try to explain to Jimmy and Marta that you can not fly a canopy backwards because guess what? Either one of them will huck themselves off of an object and show you how it's done. Now do we need to fly our skydiving canopies backwards? No ... but it is a life save survival maneuver in the BASE world. BASE canopies and skydiving canopies have different aspect ratios, and thus doing this is easier on a BASE canopy. But a canopy is still a canopy.

As far as your comments about a finite stall point, my aviation background just doesn't buy this. But as I said earlier, I am not a canopy GURU and I'd prefer to not make a comment on this, as who knows ... I could be wrong ... and I am after all still a student of flight. But I will always defend my stance that a wing can stall at any air speed and at any attitude.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Steel 0]

Quote

Care to explain how a BASE canopy can back away from objects if the pilot opens facing one then?

I have never heard of this. But then again, I never had the desire to base jump. Still, I think I know enough about flying to figure it out. If a base canopy can fly backwards then its not really flying, its dragging. In that case backing out is just about redirecting which way the canopy is falling/dragging. Flying is about building pressure on the bottom of a wing. In an airplane you can see the required shape to build this pressure in the spinning prop, which will cause the plane to move foward and then the pressure will be built up in the wings. When there is not enough of this pressure built up in the wings to sustain lift is when it will stall. When you change the angle of attack (or angle of descent), which is determined by its relation to the relative wind, so much that it disrupts the airflow and not allow this pressure to be maintained, it will stall. This goes back to my previous explanation.
So if what you're saying is true about the base canopy, its because it not flying (atleast at the point when its backing out), its just creating enough drag to slow your descent to survivability.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[chachi 0]

straight up, and not to be rude, but your wrong. i can fly my Fox backward for as long as i want and not stall it. all you are doing is changing the leading edge to the tail and making the nose in fact the tail. it is not near as efficient but if you pitch the tail down lower than the nose and change the angle of attack your canopy will fly backwards.

~chachi

[Steel 0]

Quote

straight up, and not to be rude, but your wrong. i can fly my Fox backward for as long as i want and not stall it. all you are doing is changing the leading edge to the tail and making the nose in fact the tail. it is not near as efficient but if you pitch the tail down lower than the nose and change the angle of attack your canopy will fly backwards.

~chachi

If you have a canopy large enough, it can easily be stalled while its still creating drag and being maintained over your head.
You and anybody else who is not understanding needs to do a search on Bernouli's principal and read about it. (I had to learn it for my pilot license thats the only reason I know it.) Then you will understand why you can't possibly make the tail suddenly act as the nose. I don't doubt that you can drag backwards as long as you want. If you have enough square footage you can create enough drag. But the principals of flight which allow an airplane (or a high performance swooping canopy) to fly, are not acting on your canopy in that situation.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Treejumps 0]

Quote: The bottom line is that any particular canopy will always stall, at the same tail deflection.

You are 100% wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff? The stall point will change based on many variables, especially while in a turn. Everyone knows that planes (and canopies) have a higher stall speed while in a turn. This is extremely basic. In fact, a canopy will stall with no tail deflection if it is going slow enough. You can also stall a canopy by changing the angle of attack using only the rear risers (I understand that you do not use rear risers, but advanced canopy pilots will understand).

Quote: "high speeds stalls are not caused by abrupt manuvers".
You are incorrect. High speed stalls are caused by the laminar flow separating from wing (casued by over-input of any kind. There is something other than toggles).

Quote: For whoever said that a canopy can fly backwards, thats funny.

You are displaying poor knowledge of canopy flight. Perhaps you should read Brian Germain's new book, as it may help you catch up to the short bus on canopy flight. FACT: A square parachute will fly backwards. Ariflow over a wing in reverse will develop lift. Don't believe me? Ask any BASE jumper, accuracy jumper, CRew Dog, or anyone else who generally understands parachutes.

Quote: "When you don't know what your doing",

Enough said.

[speedy 0]

Quote

You and anybody else who is not understanding needs to do a search on Bernouli's principal and read about it.

If the Bernouli principal is the only reason a wing flies, how come planes can fly upside down? Why are they not sucked to the ground? There is a lot more to flight than Bernouli.

And just to put the thread back on topic, I think Skyhighkiy has learnt something from this thread and Brians book. He did say in a post here that he will be taking it a lot more slowly from now on.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Ok in case anybody needs this clarification, that is if there are any student pilots here who don't have flight instructors, because its unrealistic to apply this to parachutes. An airplane when banked, if maintaining level flight, (something not normally done with a canopy unless you are carving it) will have its stall speed increased by the squareroot of the inverse cosine of the angle you're banking at. 45 degree bank = radical 2 or 1.44 60 degree bank = 2. 75 degree bank is something like 4, I don't remember now and I don't care to take out the calculator.
For those of you who are stuck wondering why a canopy will stall easier with rear risers, I will explain it. Deflecting the tail, that is pulling on the brakes will change you angle of attack/descent slower than pulling on your rear risers. Pulling on your rear risers is more direct. Before somebody jumps on this, I will clear up that its more directly changing the angle of attack, but that does not mean its doing all the same things. When you pull on the rear risers instead you are not creating as much drag so you don't slow down as much. I have had enough here and now must do some work.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

You and anybody else who is not understanding needs to do a search on Bernouli's principal and read about it.

If the Bernouli principal is the only reason a wing flies, how come planes can fly upside down? Why are they not sucked to the ground? There is a lot more to flight than Bernouli.

Very good point actually and can be answered as simply as, why do you think aerobatic planes are usually bi planes?

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[ManBird 0]

High speed stalls generally come from going big on rear risers. The reason is that you are taking about one half to two thirds of your canopy out of the airflow. Digging on rear risers leaves you with what's between the As and Bs, and everything behind the Bs becomes useless. It's like going from a 100 to a 40, mid-dive. That's a high speed stall.

Canopies will pretty much only stall from digging on toggles when you overload them (cough, cough). At 4:1, a high speed stall can come from toggles because you can so quickly use all the canopy's lift potential. This is rarely going to be the case at or under 2:1. It's a different type of high speed stall, but the net result is the same -- hitting the ground hard.

"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯"

Click

[skyhighkiy 0]

I know I said I was done w/ this thread but I had to post something that I've learned.

It's probably the most important lesson to learn in this world of jumpers. and I've learned it within the last copule of minutes.


Skydivers think they're right

BE THE BUDDHA!

[Kris 0]

Quote

Very good point actually and can be answered as simply as, why do you think aerobatic planes are usually bi planes?

Eh'?! The most high-performance aerobatic planes are not bi-planes. Try again.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Treejumps 0]

Dear Bruno,

You have zero credibility regarding the use of rear risers to land a parachute. You have admitted, and we already know, that you cannot and do not use them. Why would you try to explain something you have no knowledge of?

Writing lot and lots of words does not change this fact. Using big words does not change this fact. Holding yoursefl out as a expert on any kind of flight is just silly. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinions are far from fact. , Your lack of knowledge on how parachutes fly is proven by the many inaccuracies you have posted in this thread. (such as "parachutes can't fly backwards, when IN FACT THEY DO)

[markbaur 0]

Quote

Why do you think aerobatic planes are usually bi planes?

Because moving the mass closer to the CG allows faster rolls. Nothing to do with the airfoil. And certainly not because one wing is upside down.

There's lots of drag association with struts and wires, though, so here's a link with a picture of an Extra 300: http://www.airventure.org/2004/performers/patty_wagstaff.html. A monoplane. The airplane of choice for world-class aerobatics competition.

Mark
Gold Seal CFI-ASMEL,IA,H,G

[speedy 0]

Quote

Skydivers think they're right

Have a look at the threads on exit separtion. Those threads are full of people that think they are right and have got it all wrong.

I don't want to rehash what everyones has been saying, but please, take things a bit more slowly. I like the way you don't get all uppetty when people criticise what you are doing and would like to see you survive your 1st 500 jumps.

The sentence you posted about Brain's book you are reading should be used as a review quote.

Quote

In all honesty, this book may have extended my life-span

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[skyhighkiy 0]

*mumbles* damn skydivers

j/p

BE THE BUDDHA!

[Steel 0]

For the record: Although I don't land my current canopy on rear risers, I have done this. Actually I did this @ 1.4 wingloading, 1.9, @ 2.4 and even @3.1. I did it before many dissenters here made there first jump, period. But that doesn't change anything about flight characteristics and aerodynamics anyway.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[skyhighkiy 0]

something else I've learned about skydivers, from being around them and seeing them on videos and hearing from them

they always think they invented something or did something FIRST and they have no problem telling everyone

hahaha...oh man

BE THE BUDDHA!

[chachi 0]

Quote

For the record: Although I don't land my current canopy on rear risers, I have done this. Actually I did this @ 1.4 wingloading, 1.9, @ 2.4 and even @3.1. I did it before many dissenters here made there first jump, period. But that doesn't change anything about flight characteristics and aerodynamics anyway.

for the record, because you have landed a canopy on rears gives no credibility to your posts that are filled with fiction. and for one other little piece of advice, quit trying to prove your accomplishments, why not just achieve something better than "i can land at 4.0" and then let people talk about your achievements. you wont even have to.

~Chachi

[murps2000 86]

Very good point actually and can be answered as simply as, why do you think aerobatic planes are usually bi planes? ***

Do you mean: Why do you think most aerobatic planes have symmetrical airfoils?

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Hey, in like 4 or 5 years, when I learn how to swoop, providing you and I are on our way to becoming old skydivers, I'll see you there

I look forward to it
Stay safe.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team