Help:Girl wants to play with the boys

[perse 0]

What is the best recovery arc? (YES OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON THE CANOPY YOU ARE FLYING!, BUT GENERALLY) I see too many jumpers swooping who still believe that the steeper the recovery arc the longer the swoop. Are there any pilots or anyone else who knows that much physics that can tell me how much a steep change in a round path of an article (the swooper) affects/kills the speed. Or when is the angle too level ("you're too far from the corner") and drag kills more speed than the change of direction? Has anyone ever calculated these. BG?

Learning the correct terminology will go a long way towards convincing those around you that you are worthy of learning technique.

Language first, technique second - unless you're working off hand signals.

Please - It's Arc, not Arch. I've corrected it for you.

t

[speedy 0]

I do wish people would stop talking about "recovery arch".

it's arc for gods sake. Or is it really arch in the U.S. ?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

I do wish people would stop talking about "recovery arch".

it's arc for gods sake. Or is it really arch in the U.S. ?

No, it is arc here, too.

Although, recovering from arching too much generally happens the day after any RW for me

As for the physics, i'll leave that to the experts, maybe Kallend or someone.

-A

[speedy 0]

Quote

Although, recovering from arching too much generally happens the day after any RW for me

I only have back problems after arching when the tandem was falling at 135mph

Which brings me back to the original post, I think it's best not not mix disciplines. It's very rare that I will attempt a swoop after a tandem video or a RW jump. I generally just follow the pattern so as to be less a danger to myself and others.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[marks 0]

Quote

What is the best recovery arc? (YES OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON THE CANOPY YOU ARE FLYING!, BUT GENERALLY) I see too many jumpers swooping who still believe that the steeper the recovery arc the longer the swoop. Are there any pilots or anyone else who knows that much physics that can tell me how much a steep change in a round path of an article (the swooper) affects/kills the speed. Or when is the angle too level ("you're too far from the corner") and drag kills more speed than the change of direction? Has anyone ever calculated these. BG?

Learning the correct terminology will go a long way towards convincing those around you that you are worthy of learning technique.

Language first, technique second - unless you're working off hand signals.

Please - It's Arc, not Arch. I've corrected it for you.

t

it isnt the canopy at all, at least not untill you a HELL of a good pilot, then weights, canopy and drag start meaning alot.... but you have a SHITLOAD! of stuff to go through before you get to that point.

learn what you got, and do it better than anyone else, then move on to ways to make it better..

[Beverly 1]

Thanks PJ, will take you up on that.

I think true friendship is under-rated

Twitter: @Dreamskygirlsa

[perse 0]

Well thank You!! Don't you people know that people skydive also in countries where english isn't native language. Sorry for all the mistakes but you all seem stupid enough not to answer my question, though you clearly understood what I meant. I've done enough swooping to use weights and all the other things to add a few meters to my swoop, but I still liked to know if anyone has ever calculated some kind of physical formulas or models for a swooper?

BTW. Why are most of posts in this forum just joking or stupid arguing about some "can I make a 270 from 300ft with a katana loaded 1.9?".....Everyone who can answer that knows that if you ask, you shouldn't even consider flying such canopy. What I mean is that there are so few threads that actually are about swooping techniques and about some useful information about "modified equipment" used for swooping etc.

Let's see how many jokes there will be before I get some answer to the question I already asked a few posts ago

[marks 0]

well i dont know of anyone that has come up with some model.

but think of it this way,

your wing, "whatever it is" creates lift with airspeed, the more airspeed it creates, the more lift generated, now if the canopy is at a higher angle of attack, usually it will have a longer recovery arc. so it would take more speed to generate the lift to the point where you could go horizontal without input.

now a canopy that has a lower angle of attack can still do some of the same things but the arc is shorter. so not as much speed is needed. and if you generate too much speed it might start to get so much lift that it begins to gain altitude from all the lift generated from the extra speed.

i think it would be dificult to come up with a model unless there was ALOT more fixed variables. but then again. i dont do physics...

Quote

What is the best recovery arc? (YES OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON THE CANOPY YOU ARE FLYING!, BUT GENERALLY)

i wouldnt hold your breath for a definate answer.

for swooping?
for accuracy?
for speed?
for distance?
for aff's?
for tandam?

im assuming swooping so i will have to guess a longer arc is better, only because that is what were using now. not because of some model. but that is what is best for right now. a long recovery arc, but im sure there is a point where it is too long. it wouldnt be real without it...

hahaha look, no jokes before your answer

[perse 0]

Think it this way.

We all know that if you do a very short/steep recovery arc you kill the speed. If you do a very long recovery arc the drag kills more speed than the change in direction. Of course there are many other things but these are the ones that have the biggest influence in the speed. (Or the motion energy? I've no idea if thats the right word?)
Yes it's somewhere in the middle, or maybe a little on the longer side. At least it's safer. We will get some kind of 2. degree equation from this one, but so far I've no idea how the change in an articles direction affects the energy the article has. (i.e. in this case an article on a round path=recovery arc where the radius of the path gets shorter or longer).

Aren't there any physicians? Are you all doctors?

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

That's a really good question, I wish I had the Physics knowledge to answer it. I am not sure what the difference in the degradation of angular velocity due to drag from size/mass of the parachutist vs the degradation of angular velocity due to change in direction of a parachutist would be. You could probably get an appoximation by considering the parachutist as a pendulum.

I know that Kallend and some others (billvon?) are well versed in Physics, but might never look at a thread titled "girl wants to play with the boys." You might want to repost your question and ask about Physics and forces in the title. Or, alternatively, try www.physicsforums.com you will most definitely get a response there.

Oh, and just wanted to say, right on about your rant, too! I hope I didn't offend you, I was just answering the other guys question about arc/vs/arch in US. I can see how the whole to-do about it would be offensive, good for you for speaking up especially if you aren't from the US! I think questions like yours trump "I jump a velocity at 80 jumps" any day, but alas, there aren't as many of these type of questions, and not many here are qualified to answer.

Take care, and if you repost the question I will definitely be following it on either forum.

Angela.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I am no expert swooper but as far as I know there are 2 reasons why swoopers add weights.
1. A larger canopy will fly further than a smaller canopy when both have the same wing loading.
2. A higher wing loading will generate more speed but will not swoop as far. So more weight for speed rounds, less weight for distance rounds.

The pilot is by far the most important factor in the equation.

A sufficiently experienced small person cannot reach an optimal loading under the smallest stock sized canopies. I'm not a small guy and jump disproportionately larger reserves. Without weights I'd barely get 2.1 pounds/square foot under the smallest Velocity, 2.0 under the smallest Katana and 1.9 under the smallest Samurai. I don't jump enough and live at 5000 feet so the issue is theoretical for me.

Other people are less fortunate: there are girls that leave the plane weighing 30-55 pounds less than me. Some will eventually get into competitive swooping and have a real problem - some tiny girls would need 55 square feet to be competitive without weights.

[brits17 0]

Quote

Other people are less fortunate: there are girls that leave the plane weighing 30-55 pounds less than me. Some will eventually get into competitive swooping and have a real problem - some tiny girls would need 55 square feet to be competitive without weights.

This is true. As of right now, I'm on a VX60 loaded 2.0:1. I'm 120 out the door. Competing in the cpc this year has taught me so much, and has been the most beneficial learning experience yet... not to mention so much fun!

But I have been wondering... while a killer swoop for me is 250 feet, it doesn't compare to the guys loading 2.3:1 and jumping a 103 velo. Granted, I'm one of the least experienced competitors in the field, plus am new at rear riser usage (so I don't use them in comp rounds yet) but it still seems to make a slight difference when observing similar flight patterns and landing technique with those using a larger, similar loaded wing.

_______________________
aerialkinetics.com