90,180 or 270

[Chilly_Dk 0]

Quote

Do you honestly feel that 100 swoops and 300 jumps qualifies you to be telling anyone what (you think) the 'cardinal' and 'golden' rules of swooping are?

Woooooow.... Easy now. If you don't agree on his points, let him know in a nice way.
People who are not very experienced, might remember some of the advice the rest of us have started to forget/neglect.
As an example; A student I had, made a very important point to a more experienced skydiver who instantly told him off. Result: Cypres fire at 8.000 feet, which could have been avoided.

I am not about to lecture you, you can do as you please. I know I'm still learning.

Quote

You Do Not Have To Swoop Every Skydive

Leave yourself OUTS

Yes, I agree. They are not the only ones, but they were 2 of the first I learned, and I still use them.

Back on topic:

I do 270s at the moment. I like them, and I get to do a nice setup.

I progressed one step at a time, and tried to focus on one issue at a time. By this, I mean 45-90-120-180-270.

I spend a long time on 180s, because I went on to do rear riser input on landings. I believe this is very important, so one does not have progression in turn and a new flaring technique to learn at the same time, and I give this advice to others as well (Some of you might have a different opinion)

I felt the biggest step was the 180->270, because of the dynamics of if. Also, it is almost like a head shift, so you need to have a lot more focus on your surroundings (blind angels).

I might advance to 450s in the future, but I will evaluate by then whether I actually will gain anything or I should stick to 270s.
Oh, and I personally don't like the idea of a 360

It's all right to have butterflies in your stomach. Just get them to fly in formation.

[BDashe 0]

how many jumps did you guys have before you started swooping? I know i am a ways away, but just out of curiosity, what is a nice round number to start thinkin about practicing some 90's at altitude? Thanks all, clear skies!

Best,

Brett

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[Kimblair13 0]

Quote

what is a nice round number to start thinkin about practicing some 90's at altitude

You can practice 90's at altitude all you want. Heck try some 720's! AT ALTITUDE

Disclaimer: I don't really know too much about swooping and don't really swoop myself

[superstu 0]

Quote

Disclaimer: I don't really know too much about swooping and don't really swoop myself

i call bull shit on this statement. young kimmie here will be rippin you guys a new one here shortly. she goes further doing a 90 then a lot of guys i know throwing 180's and 270's.

edited to add: i do 270's just cause it's easier to set up. i'll be working on 450's here shortly tho, which also has the same set up just from the opposite side of the gates.

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[AggieDave 6]

I learned something last night from someone that has a LOT more experiene then I do. Basically that on just about any canopy loaded under 1.9 or so, anything over a 180 is nothing more then just a traffic hazard and the canopy won't gain any more speed then just a 180. That and just about any canopy loaded under 1.3 wont gain any more speed then from just a 90. Not saying that someone shouldn't learn how to do those kinds of approaches on a lighter loaded canopy, just that they won't gain any more from their swoop by doing more then those turns on their canopy. After further thought I would seem to agree with it.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[frost 1]

wonder who that wizard would be? I call shenanigans on that. Any canopy needs a certain amount of time to reach its terminal velocity and 90 or 180 is just not enough time.

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[YISkyDive 0]

nah- I agree with Dave on this.. at least on the lightly loaded canopy thing..

With a tri210 loaded at 1.07 : 1

My 90 degree vertical component was 21 mph
while my 270 vertical component was 26mph.

The diffrence is (I guess) pretty small, given the degree change increase... but also the 270 was performed at 2,000 feet, while the 90 was onto final.


My Diablo is funny though.. Its loaded at 1.3 : 1 (avg) and my neptune has shown wierd numbers for it..:

Riser 90: 18mph
Toggle90: 25mph
Frontriser180 to harness180: 39.5 done at 600 ft
Harness1260(0 toggle after first 180) : 50 MPH. done at 1000ft

Thats on a 170 Diablo via neptune again.

I know the Diablo is out there interms of desgin and place.. but those numbers where like wow. Im especially confused by the toggle being so much faster than the riser.

I was also pretty impressed that a 170 could get "locked" into harness turns. It felt neat- very very very diffrent spiral360s and riser 360s.. much more force was in the system- like positiveGs.


edited for unit error

[Lindsey 0]

It's than, Dave, than. C'mon! You're an edumacated boy.

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

wonder who that wizard would be? I call shenanigans on that. Any canopy needs a certain amount of time to reach its terminal velocity and 90 or 180 is just not enough time.

I agree that it's bogus. There's a lot more to a 270 than simply turning 270 degrees (at least doing a good one). For the record, I think 180's are much more of a traffic hazzard than a 270 as well (I am NOT, however, saying that they shouldn't be learned. They are an important part of the progression. )


Blues.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[marks 0]

there is a whole other theory on this that would shed A LOT of light on why it is not bogus, but I will let someone else explain it. because it doesn't seem "conservative" enough for most.

[superstu 0]

just wanted to throw in an interested tid bit of info. that might stir some thoughts

when i was in colorado i was able to have dinner with a very well respected pro pilot and we got on to the conversation of terminal velocities and turns. he mentioned that for his canopy he doesn't really start to get close to terminal velocity until he's gone through about 2200-2500' of altitude in a turn. so basically he was telling me is that yes you'll gain more speed from doing bigger turns but as you do them the speed you get in return will be smaller and smaller.

i thought it was interesting and might help explain why doing a 90 you get 21mph and doing a 270 you only get 26. plus as speed increases so does drag.

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[frost 1]

Quote

...until he's gone through about 2200-2500' of altitude in a turn. so basically he was telling me is that yes you'll gain more speed from doing bigger turns but as you do them the speed you get in return will be smaller and smaller.

Plus less in terms of accuracy? but again with repetition you'll get good at big turns too. Now here is another point. I think BIG turns anything over 270 are MUCH more of a traffic hazard then a 180 or 270. MUCH more. Even with a 360 you have a huge blind spot behind you EXACTLY where a staright in approach guy would be.

Quote

i thought it was interesting and might help explain why doing a 90 you get 21mph and doing a 270 you only get 26. plus as speed increases so does drag.

Definitely! Thats why each object has a terminal velocity. But it takes time to reach it and i dont think a 90 or a 180 would allow enough time for that.

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[marks 0]

Quote

plus as speed increases so does drag.

doubling your speed= tripling your drag.

Quote

Definitely! Thats why each object has a terminal velocity. But it takes time to reach it and i dont think a 90 or a 180 would allow enough time for that.

thats assuming you can still turn the canopy.

it isnt that hard loaded up at 2.5, but tell that to somone under a sabre 150.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

It's than, Dave, than. C'mon! You're an edumacated boy.

Peace~
linz

But he's edumacated as an Aggie.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I call shenanigans on that

Shenanigans on what?

Big turns on bigger, lightly loaded canopies are a waste of time?

Due to the canopies terminal velocity?

Even if the terminal velocity part isn't true, it's still not the best idea to do big turns on a bigger canopy. Just based on the altitude you have to turn a big canopy, settign up a more complex, bigger turn close to the ground is a shitty game to play.

Only adding to that is the concept that a guy who is both A) jumping a bigger canopy, and B) wanting to do big turns indicates a lower experience level. If a guy with a ton of jumps wants to do big turns, they'll use a smaller, more divey canopy, and be done with their rotation with several hundered feet to spare.

In any case, the terminal velocity thing is dead nuts on. A big canopy will 'hit the wall' after a pretty brief time-in-turn.

[frost 1]

Quote

Quote

I call shenanigans on that

Shenanigans on what?

On your "i jumped a lot of canopies so i know" talk. Once again all i see are YOUR thoughts on concepts. Present me with a valid SCIENTIFICALLY proven theory (or even just a theory) and i am willing to consider my point an error. Otherwise... it's just your opinion.

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[crazydiver 0]

Quote

If a guy with a ton of jumps wants to do big turns, they'll use a smaller, more divey canopy, and be done with their rotation with several hundered feet to spare.

Quote

I know some people in this sport and who regularly post on this website who would disagree with you saying that someone with lots of jumps who wants to do big turns would use a smaller canopy. This is definetly not always the case is a relatively dangerous way to approach it. It sounds to me like you're saying that if you want to do higher rotations on final, just go smaller with your wing. I think this is a bad plan.

And there's a progression to be made. A mistake I see from a lot of high number jumpers is that they jump from their 170 down to something 135 or smaller. Jump numbers mean nothing when a person doesn't progress.

Cheers,
Travis

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I call shenanigans on that

Shenanigans on what?

On your "i jumped a lot of canopies so i know" talk. Once again all i see are YOUR thoughts on concepts. Present me with a valid SCIENTIFICALLY proven theory (or even just a theory) and i am willing to consider my point an error. Otherwise... it's just your opinion.

dont get so defensive.

as much as i hate to say it, i share his same opinion.

• Quote

[marks 0]

Quote

I know some people in this sport and who regularly post on this website who would disagree with you saying that someone with lots of jumps who wants to do big turns would use a smaller canopy. This is definetly not always the case is a relatively dangerous way to approach it. It sounds to me like you're saying that if you want to do higher rotations on final, just go smaller with your wing. I think this is a bad plan.

why would they do big turns then?

nevermind, im staying out of this.

[dploi 0]

Quit the bickering. Just stick to the 4, like I said. It's rad.

[frost 1]

it goes back to some other discussion we had a bit back :)

I'd like nothing more then to hear the theory behind that opinion. PM me if you want

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[crazydiver 0]

Quote

why would they do big turns then?

Quote

To increase their their velocity to create more lift during a swoop. I'm saying that many people prefer to fly their current wings harder to get better swoops, rather than downsizing if they want to do swoop landings. Not that a person has to do either. I just thought it was an odd statement to say that if a person has a lot of jumps and wants to increase thier rotations, they would downsize. I dont think that's necesarily true at all.

Cheers,
Travis

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[crazydiver 0]

I agree with davelepka in that canopies with shorter recovery arcs are more dangerous to do multiple or complex rotations. I advise anyone who swoops a canopy with a short recovery arc to move to soemthing with more margin of error when coming out of their dive.

However, I dont think its fair to say that because a wing is larger would make it less safe to do complex turns to final than a little pocket rocket.

Cheers,
Travis

[dploi 0]

The degree of the turn is far less important than the time spent in the turn.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

The degree of the turn is far less important than the time spent in the turn.

This was one of the biggest issues I learned when I did my initial high performance canopy coaching with Slaton last year. I used to think that I needed to be in the same part of the sky on every jump and he taught me that every jump is different and he armed me with the knowledge of what sort of turn rate was required in the different scenarios I may find myself in. To myself (outside of the turn rate issue), one of the most import things to know is when to get off of the risers and this is something that only time and experience can solve.

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