Velocity Technical Question

[matt3sa 0]

My 270's on my 96 loaded at 1.8/1.9 start at around 650-700 ft. If I increase my wing load to 2.2 what are we talking about for a new setup altitude on a 270?

[Rookie120 0]

All depends on the setup. Do you double front dive for a bit before the turn? How fast do you turn? All of these are factors. I'm at a 2.5 on a 96 and start my 270 at 750.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[matt3sa 0]

Im deep in the toggles at 700ish. Release, surge, double fronts until about 625ish, let up on left toggle to begin 270 with right front riser. The first 180 degrees is a slow turn followed by a quick snap for the last 90..... so based on what you are saying I'm probably not talking about a significant difference. Maybe 100ish feet + or -.

[Luck 0]

VC90 loaded at 2.5:
Deep in the toggles until 820ft where I start diving on double fronts for about 3 to 5 seconds. Then I start to initiate my turn via harnass input and let my frontsrisers go very smoothly.

JVX74 loaded at 2.82:
Same procedure but I start diving at 950ft

[DocPop 1]

I would be wary of using someone else's numbers when you don;t know their turn, their density altitude etc

IMO the right answer is to do a high pull and some performance enveloping.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[ianmdrennan 2]

DocPop

I would be wary of using someone else's numbers when you don;t know their turn, their density altitude etc

IMO the right answer is to do a high pull and some performance enveloping.

Correct answer.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Pablo.Moreno 0]

Something to add, don't do just one HnP.

Do at least 10 times 270 the way you always do at a higher altitude +2000ft, get the altitude lost and created your average altitude lost.

Also if you realized your front risers get pretty heavy after two dives in the HnP, then limit it to maybe two dives per HnP When you get tire the altitude lost is not going to be accurate and is only going to bring your average starting altitude higher than what it would normally be.

That way you will get the right altitude for your own technique.

[DocPop 1]

Pablo.Moreno

Something to add, don't do just one HnP.

Do at least 10 times 270 the way you always do at a higher altitude +2000ft, get the altitude lost and created your average altitude lost.

Agree with more than 1 HnP, but I used the term "performance enveloping" to mean don't just do the turn you usually do. In addition do the snappiest single front riser turn a few times and the slowest, most divey turn you can from deep brakes a few times.

This gives you a min and max altitude in which you can complete your turn. A useful dataset to have if, like me, you don't always hit your initiation point dead nuts on the planned altitude.

An example of using these numbers for me is that my lowest 270 altitude overlaps my highest 90 altitude so if I am too low for my left hand 270 I'll switch to a right hand 90 to hopefully still hit the gates.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[wildcard451 0]

DocPop

***Something to add, don't do just one HnP.

Do at least 10 times 270 the way you always do at a higher altitude +2000ft, get the altitude lost and created your average altitude lost.

Agree with more than 1 HnP, but I used the term "performance enveloping" to mean don't just do the turn you usually do. In addition do the snappiest single front riser turn a few times and the slowest, most divey turn you can from deep brakes a few times.

This gives you a min and max altitude in which you can complete your turn. A useful dataset to have if, like me, you don't always hit your initiation point dead nuts on the planned altitude.

An example of using these numbers for me is that my lowest 270 altitude overlaps my highest 90 altitude so if I am too low for my left hand 270 I'll switch to a right hand 90 to hopefully still hit the gates.

Also, the altitude loss data you get from up high will likely be a higher altitude than you will actually perform on the ground, so don't surprised if you come out high the first few times and gradually have to bring your turn back to the ground. However, do not put the cart before the horse and bring your turn down without using your full alti HnP data first.

Nothing another couple hundred jumps won't fix.

[Pablo.Moreno 0]

DocPop

***Something to add, don't do just one HnP.

Do at least 10 times 270 the way you always do at a higher altitude +2000ft, get the altitude lost and created your average altitude lost.

Agree with more than 1 HnP, but I used the term "performance enveloping" to mean don't just do the turn you usually do. In addition do the snappiest single front riser turn a few times and the slowest, most divey turn you can from deep brakes a few times.

This gives you a min and max altitude in which you can complete your turn. A useful dataset to have if, like me, you don't always hit your initiation point dead nuts on the planned altitude.

An example of using these numbers for me is that my lowest 270 altitude overlaps my highest 90 altitude so if I am too low for my left hand 270 I'll switch to a right hand 90 to hopefully still hit the gates.

Awesome, I am actually excited right now, this is an awesome example of how this forum can be of use.

I just learn another way of increasing my "play book", always when I was high I would make the turn slower, but if I was low I would decrease the turn, never really cross my mind on having a different dive in case I am too low or too high relative to my regular IP. I had the Y and X offset for different winds.

I personally haven't hit that stage of training yet, on my current wing.

Right now I just transition to a crossbraced canopy and I am back to do everything from scratch (accuracy, crosswinds, downwinds pattern flying, etc) So right now as hard as it is I am stopping myself from doing any kind of front riser dive until I am 100% proficient on this wing.

[matt002 0]

I would never make any rotation from the minimum height or even close to it, if you make a mistake from mimimum heights the result will mean impact with the ground.
I would instead make all your rotations from near the max heights, and default to a smaller rotation(90 is usually my fall back) if you miss your intiation height.

[matt3sa 0]

DocPop

I would be wary of using someone else's numbers when you don;t know their turn, their density altitude etc

IMO the right answer is to do a high pull and some performance enveloping.

Agreed and that's a very good point. For all intensive purposes I'm just curious. I can assure you that I would never just hit an approach based on what someone on dz.com says. I suspect though that a w/l change for the same person from a bigger to a smaller wing would yield a similar setup approach change given that they make the change at the same dz and under the same conditions? Clearly someone in Colorado for instance would have a different initiation altitude than say someone in Maine. But the difference between setup altitudes on a smaller wing for each jumper would be similar right? Assuming they both are wibgloaded exactly the same and make the exact same wingload change?

[DocPop 1]

matt3sa

Clearly someone in Colorado for instance would have a different initiation altitude than say someone in Maine. But the difference between setup altitudes on a smaller wing for each jumper would be similar right? Assuming they both are wingloaded exactly the same and make the exact same wingload change?

I don't know for sure, and maybe Ian or someone similarly experienced could comment, but I suspect that the percentage change would be similar but not the absolute number of feet difference.

It is so difficult to know because the variables don't all change in a linear fashion as you downsize.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[RandySwallows 0]

I'm just considering the questions/statements made:

- "Some one in Colorado...than say some one in Maine"
- "Differences between setup altitudes...for each jumper"
- "Assuming they both are wingloaded exactly the same and make the same exact wingload change"

***I'm not an expert****

Shouldn't the question be "what if I were on X wing jumping at X dropzone or if I was on Y wing and then jumped at Y dropzone"?

One can't sit down, have a beer with a buddy and figure out what my initiation point should be. Some start their 90's at 650-750. Others would do their 270 from the top of that spectrum. Right or wrong, everyone's turn is a bit different and that is personal to them. I just think it is a grave mistake to mirror one's "Altitudes" from some one elses'. Nothing wrong with referencing them, I will agree.

Go air it out and see what your canopy does for your turn at your given DZ.

Stay safe!

"The eyes must learn to listen before they learn to see".

randyswallows.com

[matt3sa 0]

RandySwallows

I'm just considering the questions/statements made:

- "Some one in Colorado...than say some one in Maine"
- "Differences between setup altitudes...for each jumper"
- "Assuming they both are wingloaded exactly the same and make the same exact wingload change"

***I'm not an expert****



Shouldn't the question be "what if I were on X wing jumping at X dropzone or if I was on Y wing and then jumped at Y dropzone"?

One can't sit down, have a beer with a buddy and figure out what my initiation point should be. Some start their 90's at 650-750. Others would do their 270 from the top of that spectrum. Right or wrong, everyone's turn is a bit different and that is personal to them. I just think it is a grave mistake to mirror one's "Altitudes" from some one elses'. Nothing wrong with referencing them, I will agree.

Go air it out and see what your canopy does for your turn at your given DZ.

Stay safe!

I completely agree.... but I think you have the wrong idea about what I'm asking..... I'm not going to take any specifics and go try it out on a new canopy. I'm not even interested in downsizing. This is purely hypothetical.

[Decodiver 0]

matt3sa

My 270's on my 96 loaded at 1.8/1.9 start at around 650-700 ft. If I increase my wing load to 2.2 what are we talking about for a new setup altitude on a 270?

Well you start at 650-700 ft then you dial it down.............

[DocPop 1]

Decodiver

***My 270's on my 96 loaded at 1.8/1.9 start at around 650-700 ft. If I increase my wing load to 2.2 what are we talking about for a new setup altitude on a 270?

Well you start at 650-700 ft then you dial it down.............

Awesome advice. Wrong and potentially deadly; but awesome.

As Pablo H says "Awesome sometimes hurts..."

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[Decodiver 0]

DocPop

******My 270's on my 96 loaded at 1.8/1.9 start at around 650-700 ft. If I increase my wing load to 2.2 what are we talking about for a new setup altitude on a 270?

Well you start at 650-700 ft then you dial it down.............

Awesome advice. Wrong and potentially deadly; but awesome.

As Pablo H says "Awesome sometimes hurts..."

Sarcasm.

You really think the guy should get his setup altitude from people on the Internet?

When by now if he has the ability to jump at a higher wingloading he should already know what extra altitude he needs to add to commence too high?

And then dial-it down..........

Logic says to commence too high with a new canopy, one would assume jumping a Velo the guy should already have good sight picturing and an ability to tighten (ie speed up) or slow and widen the turn to still make the place he wants to land.

All of this is subjective, subjective to the individual jump on the individual day at the individual height of the DZ etc etc.

Trying to get an objective answer on the Internet is madness.......

Just start too high and dial it down accordingly, doing try runs much higher are cool as a base line and offer a margin of safety as long as you are cerebral enough to add significant altitude to your initiation point. If you're not you shouldn't be jumping a HP canopy.

[angryelf 0]

True. Lot of variables in Swooping. Case in point, had to turn my "new" 96 at a lower alt to get it moving (vs my 103). It was fast, but had zero distance. Took a World Champ and Record Holder to watch me fly it, tell me "you're brakes are too short" to figure out the problem. Learning from people on the interwebs is great, but it doesn't replace real live humans with life experience watching real time to REALLY set you straight.

-Harry

"Sometimes you eat the bar,
and well-sometimes the bar eats you..."