0
Nullified

CReW wing loadings...Please read

Recommended Posts

Bubbles, Good to have you back on the forum CHTG.

I think there are several parts of this discussion that are getting out of hand. From what I have read I don't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment of Scott's letter. Highly wing loading a newbie is not the best thing to do, in CRW or otherwise. His tone may not be the best, but the point about wing loading, I believe, is right on.

I don't believe Bubbles was ready for the 126 and she and I have talked about this several times, both before and since her accident. While she may have had several successful landings on the 126, I saw other less successful landings (on the 126 and the 143). What has been said and is absolutely correct is wing loading matters most when the shit hits the fan, not on the run of the mill skydive (if there is such a thing). At the end of the day, Bubbles knew the risks/rewards of the smaller canopy and made a choice, it was her choice and hers alone. It should be made clear that no CRW dog pressured her to fly the 126.

This accident, like most, was the result of a chain of events and decisions that have been discussed throughout the forums. After the CRW formation was broken down she chose to attempt another formation that put her farther from the DZ than expected. Instead of landing in a good, off airport area, she tried to make it back (maybe because of an earlier jump in which she landed off and had to walk through swamps for an hour to get back). Maybe a lighter wing loading does change something about the jump and "landing", maybe she gets back to the DZ at a higher altitude because the glide ratio is altered. Then the last part, the penultimate decision, to bury a toggle at 50' instead of a down wind landing. Bubbles (CHTG) will have to think long and hard about that and hopefully will learn from it and have a chance to avoid the same mistake in the future.

To say this was a wing loading issue I believe is partially true, but clearly is not the final straw. It is one piece of the puzzle. I do believe if nothing else a bigger canopy may have reduced the damage. This discussion I think needs to be two separate discussions, one about wing loading and one accident specific. I think it started as two separate topics, just generated from the same incident.

Let's not start a civil war (or give anybody a black-eye, although that may be too late). I just want to skydive. Peace.

Spiderman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bubbles, Good to have you back on the forum CHTG.

I think there are several parts of this discussion that are getting out of hand. From what I have read I don't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment of Scott's letter. Highly wing loading a newbie is not the best thing to do, in CRW or otherwise. His tone may not be the best, but the point about wing loading, I believe, is right on.


To say this was a wing loading issue I believe is partially true, but clearly is not the final straw. It is one piece of the puzzle. I do believe if nothing else a bigger canopy may have reduced the damage. Let's not start a civil war (or give anybody a black-eye, although that may be too late). I just want to skydive. Peace.

Spiderman



thanks for the welcome back. I do think that wingloading can be an issue for newbies. I do see an issue about that, but from what I see i never noticed it being an issue with CRW. Maybe i'm wrong, Well there's a good chance i'm wrong, i only have about 100 crw jumps, so i have only seen so much. I'm just trying to leave this topic to wing loading. From what i've read, i've read a bunch of BS about what actually happened in that jump, that NEVER happened. I don't care, let people think what they want, but what it comes down to, for some reason I did a full toggle turn at 50 feet. If i did that under any canopy, the same thing would have happened. In my particular accident I don't see how the wingloading could play a part in it. I wish i knew why i decided to do a toggle turn at 50 feet i have no idea.

blue skies,
bubbles

p.s. anyone else that feels like bringing up that we had to walk an hour through a swamp on a jump before, doesn't understand how much fun we actually had running around. It was a lot of fun. Just leave it go, this is about wingloading, not where to land, considering i was on the far other side of the DZ when i did the turn that I should never have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't care, let people think what they want, but what it comes down to, for some reason I did a full toggle turn at 50 feet. If i did that under any canopy, the same thing would have happened



But that's just not true, Bubbles. A higher loaded canopy will drop faster than a more lightly loaded one under full toggle input. You will collide with the earth at a greater speed. That's just the way it is and people should understand that factor when they decide to downsize.

Anyway, I'm really glad you came out of this and are on the road back. Heal well.

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i still say wingloading schmingloading...

I don't see a 1:1 wingloading on a 126 that's tuned for snappy toggle response as a good idea for someone with low jumps either.

a lightnight does NOT equal a PDR.. if they did we'd all be using 'em for CRW cause the cost half as much. No, it's trimmed steeper and has shorters lines (among other things), which means it's gonna go faster for a given wingloading and it's gonna turn & dive more quickly no matter that the wingloading.

I'll bed you'd have a far harder time putting a reserve underneath you than a lightning.

And bubbles, see how much effort it takes to put yourself above your 160 when you get back in the sky. Can it be done? sure. Is it more easily done on a small canopy? definitely.

Like i said in another thread, it you need to meet the WL #s, it's safer to put on weight.

Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


a lightnight does NOT equal a PDR.. if they did we'd all be using 'em for CRW cause the cost half as much. No, it's trimmed steeper and has shorters lines (among other things), which means it's gonna go faster for a given wingloading and it's gonna turn & dive more quickly no matter that the wingloading.



That may be true but it's also true that a higher wingloading under the same canopy will result in a faster horizontal descent. Faster horizontal descent generally means you're going to get hurt worse if things go bad. That's true whether the higher wingloading is the result of adding weights or not.

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know about all that other shit, but you left too soon! Several dogs had plans to come party with you this weekend at Tandem Rehab (how's that work? They strap you to someone who does the actual exercises?) ...and you went and left early. Damn!

Had a great time at Lake Wales this weekend. The only downside was a bunch of us didn't get to meet you.

CRW Skies!

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Don't know about all that other shit, but you left too soon! Several dogs had plans to come party with you this weekend at Tandem Rehab (how's that work? They strap you to someone who does the actual exercises?) ...and you went and left early. Damn!

Had a great time at Lake Wales this weekend. The only downside was a bunch of us didn't get to meet you.

CRW Skies!

Michael



well as already mentioned, thanks anyway :) Don't worry i'll be in the sky soon enough, and will be able to perhaps jump with all you guys :)
blue, warm (it's 20 degrees up here) skies,
"Women fake orgasms - men fake whole relationships" – Sharon Stone
"The world is my dropzone" (wise crewdog quote)
"The light dims, until full darkness pierces into the world."-KDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a regular visitor to the dropzone.com forums, but I did write the e-mail that started this particular discussion and I do owe some people here the courtesy of a reply.

I really like CRW, although I haven't done enough to consider myself an expert. I do have several friends who are current and past CRW competitors and record holders, and I've always admired people who've reached that level of proficiency. I have even greater respect for those who take the time to teach others. CRW is a great way to learn about canopy flight in general, and so many people need to learn more about their canopies.

I was surprised and disappointed when I started seeing relatively inexperienced jumpers flying small, highly-loaded CRW canopies in an attempt to be compatible with more experienced people. It doesn't happen everywhere, every day, but I've personally seen it more than once. It's true that these low-time jumpers weren't being forced to jump those canopies, but they definitely were being encouraged. One or two obviously should have been told "you need to jump something bigger," but they weren't. I'm used to seeing people in the general skydiving community receive poor advice and make poor choices about downsizing. It's not right, but it is undeniably a common problem. For some reason I expected CRW coaches and other experienced CRW jumpers, who make canopy flight their main focus in the sport, to give better advice. I was hoping they would be some of the people working to solve the problem.

When Mike Ennis told me that a mutual friend had been seriously injured while jumping a small canopy, I was irritated and frustrated. It was not the first time this happened to someone I knew, and sadly enough I'm sure it won't be the last. This time I chose to vent my frustration.

Some have argued that canopy size and wing loading were not significant factors, but there are causes and conditions leading up to every accident. A jumper does not simply materialize out of thin air, 50 ft. above the ground, and crank a 180 degree turn. There will always be a series of decisions leading up to that action.

People make mistakes. We misjudge, miscalculate, and get distracted. Sometimes we become overconfident and push the limits too far. Less experienced jumpers are more likely to make these mistakes. They are also more likely to compound one mistake with another, causing a bad situation to get worse.

Small, highly loaded canopies fly faster, descend faster, and react more quickly to control inputs. This gives us less time to think, less time to react, and less time to correct errors. A larger canopy with a lighter wing loading gives an inexperienced jumper more time to think. He or she will be less likely to make a mistake, and the results of mistakes will probably be less devastating. The wing loading recommendations and sizing information published by PD and other manufacturers reflect these facts. Coaches and instructors should understand these recommendations and encourage their students to follow them. Although some novice CRW jumpers are getting good advice in this area, it appears that some are being guided by a different set of priorities.

No matter what the circumstances, I should not have sent Mike the type of message that I did, and should not have encouraged him to post it for other people to see. I should have put things in perspective, chosen my words more carefully, and addressed specific issues in a constructive way. Instead I gave in to my frustration, and even though my message has drawn attention to this issue it's fueled more disagreement than discussion. I only hope people will see that the issues at hand are important enough to discuss rationally, and will not follow the poor example I set with my earlier message.

My thanks go to the people who criticized that earlier message, for reminding me to choose my words more carefully. I'm also grateful to those who supported what I said in spite of how I said it: particularly Mike Ennis, who took a lot of heat on my behalf. Not many people would stand up for themselves that way, much less for someone else.

- Scott Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Small, highly loaded canopies fly faster, descend faster, and react more quickly to control inputs. This gives us less time to think, less time to react, and less time to correct errors. A larger canopy with a lighter wing loading gives an inexperienced jumper more time to think.



That is true when you're discussing the same canopy. Last weekend I did CRW with a newbie who was on a 1-1 loaded Sabre. Most people would consider that very reasonable for someone with low jumps. His canopy was very noticably faster than my Lightning 113 loaded at 1.375. Admittedly, it was a 9 cell, not a 7-cell, but is it any safer for him to do a low turn than it would be for me?

After that jump, I was thinking about this incident. While if he had been on a similarly wing-loaded Lightning, his descent rate would have been greater, I've got enough jumps with Lightnings to believe that his forward speed would have been less.

In general it seems to me that a similarly wing-loaded 7-cell is safer than the 9-cell. I know on my gear, I can get away with considerably lower turns on any of my 7-cells, versus the 9-cells I've owned or jumped. I can level out much faster and pull out of things I couldn't do with a 9-cell.

Its not all about wing-loading. The shape of the airfoil makes a big difference, and people can forget about that. A typical 1.3 loaded 7-cell is not the same beast as a typical 1.3 loaded 9-cell.

W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Its not all about wing-loading. The shape of the airfoil makes a big difference, and people can forget about that. A typical 1.3 loaded 7-cell is not the same beast as a typical 1.3 loaded 9-cell.



There certainly are differences between 7-cells and 9-cells, and between specific 7-cells like the Lightning and specific 9-cells like the Sabre. If we are comparing canopies that are similar in size with similar wing loadings, then these differences are important. I'm concerned about something very different.

You mentioned a newbie on a Sabre loaded at 1 to 1. Suppose that person started jumping a canopy almost 70 square feet smaller, increasing their wing loading by 40%. How would that affect their risk of making a serious mistake during approach and landing?

Even if they made this transition over the course of a few months, jumping a few sizes in between, would they really be ready for that much change if they had a relatively low number of jumps to begin with?

What if the manufacturer specified that the smaller canopy should only be jumped by expert canopy pilots at that wing loading?

What if the person did not feel very confident landing the Sabre loaded at 1 to 1 to begin with?

These are the types of situations I've seen, and this is what I'm concerned about.

- Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



You mentioned a newbie on a Sabre loaded at 1 to 1. Suppose that person started jumping a canopy almost 70 square feet smaller, increasing their wing loading by 40%. How would that affect their risk of making a serious mistake during approach and landing?



70 square feet smaller is a lot greater than CRWdogs normally do. My first canopy off of student status was a Monarch 135, very docile for me at the time, and I currently jump a Lightning 113 for CRW. 22 sq ft difference. And given how PD measures differently than the rest of the industry, most likely even less than 22 square feet difference. The guy I'm referring to, with his weight, I would have put him on a Lightning 176 if I wanted him on a Lightning instead of a Sabre 190 - only 14 square feet of difference.

Most people I know who have 2-300 jumps are loading freefall canopies as high or higher than we do CRW. In general, women load their canopies less than the guys, but by the time they get 2-300 jumps, assuming they can afford it, most guys are at a wing-loading similar to or higher than the 1.3ish we use for CRW. I'm not saying its a good thing, but it seems to be true. In fact other than the true newbies, most people I teach CRW to who jump Lightnings with me, tend to upsize, not downsize. Heck I went from jumping a Jonathan 105 to a Lightning 113 when I started doing CRW (or I might even have been on my Jedei 92 by that point.)

Quote


What if the manufacturer specified that the smaller canopy should only be jumped by expert canopy pilots at that wing loading?



I do pay attention to manufacturers ratings somewhat, but different manufactures have greatly differing ideas of such things. What experienced on a PD canopy is usually listed as beginner on an Atair canopy. I don't think a Cobalt 120 is that different from a Stilletto 120 to make one a novice canopy and one an expert canopy but that's what the manufacturer's say.

At least in my part of the country, it might be different where you are, the people with a couple of hundred jumps who start CRW are generally not downsizing to Lightnings. This usually makes for very humorous efforts to fit a Lightning in their container because their container is built for a similar sized freefall main or even a smaller one.

In all honesty, I'm MUCH more concerned about the number of freefallers who get 1.3-1.4 loaded Stillettos and such at 200 jumps. They're a lot more likely to kill themselves on that canopy than they are a Lightning. The 7-cell squares are just not as radical as the ellipticals.

W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where we live even the most conservative jumpers don't consider 1.3 on ZP to be all that heavily loaded. Granted, a 113 loaded at 1.3 handles differently then a 176 at 1.3. But whether you do or don't, or have 1 or 10,000 jumps, or jump Manta, Velocity or Lightning
the Safety Rules remain firm.

1000 feet and below no 360s

500 feet and below no 180s

300 feet and below already facing into the wind and nothing but light, gentle and easy toggle inputs to a flair
at 15 feet.
I try to live by these rules and hope my friends and
CRW Dogs do to.
T
AFF/ I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mean they are going to design in a better flare for the lightning?

I guess I could be considered as an offender in the downsizing before its my time into as an example the previously mentioned other manufacturers canopy. Onto a simultaneous wing loading of 1.4 and 1.6 as I got two examples of there product into my permanent possession at or or around 150 jumps. Several hundred jumps later joining a CReW beginners camp loaded in beteen what I would load myself on either of my regular mains. My only concerns were this lightnings lack of flare and the cabability of my reserve.
No low turns means exactly that. And you can eliminate 97% of the problems jumpers get into if they follow this very simple rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

70 square feet smaller is a lot greater than CRWdogs normally do.


I'm sure it is, and that's a good thing, but I've recently seen a few instances where people actually downsized that far in a short period of time. Their only apparent reason for doing so was to reach a wing loading that was compatible with others doing CRW. I'm concerned that this will happen more often if people don't stop to consider the consequences.

Quote

I do pay attention to manufacturers ratings somewhat, but different manufactures have greatly differing ideas of such things. What experienced on a PD canopy is usually listed as beginner on an Atair canopy.


Unfortunately that is very true in some cases, but when a jumper is going to fly a specific canopy, the recommendations published by the manufacturer of that canopy are the ones that should be considered. If someone is jumping a Lightning, PD's recommendations for the Lightning are the ones that apply, not Atair's recommendations for the Cobalt.

Quote

In all honesty, I'm MUCH more concerned about the number of freefallers who get 1.3-1.4 loaded Stillettos and such at 200 jumps. They're a lot more likely to kill themselves on that canopy than they are a Lightning. The 7-cell squares are just not as radical as the ellipticals.


Square vs. elliptical only matters if you are talking about canopies that are similar in size and wing loading. A Lightning 126 loaded at 1.3 to 1 is far more aggressive and far less forgiving than a Stiletto 190 loaded at 1 to 1. A huge drop in size and huge increase in wing loading can cause serious problems with any type of canopy. A small, highly loaded Lightning is not going to be forgiving just because it is square.

- Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No low turns means exactly that. And you can eliminate 97% of the problems jumpers get into if they follow this very simple rule.



I agree with you. And you can probably eliminate 97% of all malfunctions by packing correctly and deploying in a perfect body position. But sometimes we make mistakes while packing or deploy with our shoulders uneven. That's why we wear reserves. And less experienced jumpers often make mistakes under canopy, which is why they need to jump more forgiving canopies.

- Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Small, highly loaded canopies fly faster, descend faster, and react more quickly to control inputs. This gives us less time to think, less time to react, and less time to correct errors. A larger canopy with a lighter wing loading gives an inexperienced jumper more time to think.



That is true when you're discussing the same canopy. Last weekend I did CRW with a newbie who was on a 1-1 loaded Sabre. Most people would consider that very reasonable for someone with low jumps. His canopy was very noticably faster than my Lightning 113 loaded at 1.375. Admittedly, it was a 9 cell, not a 7-cell, but is it any safer for him to do a low turn than it would be for me?



I'm no expert on the physics of canopy flight but my understanding is that a 9-cell will go faster horizontally than a comparable 7-cell, but the 7-cell will descend faster. Since it's generally agreed that excessive vertical speed is more dangerous than horizontal, I'd say there's a good chance it would be more dangerous for you to do a low turn than for him (not that it's a good idea in any case). Of course, there are other factors involved such as difference in your weights, canopy trim, etc. But overall a higher loaded canopy, especially a 7-cell will descend faster than lighter loaded one. And if we're talking about circumstances that could cause a canopy to dive so radically it hits the ground before the passenger, that's going to be a lot more likely under 1.3 WL than 1:1.

And I say that as someone who flies a 7-cell loaded at 1.3.

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Square vs. elliptical only matters if you are talking about canopies that are similar in size and wing loading. A Lightning 126 loaded at 1.3 to 1 is far more aggressive and far less forgiving than a Stiletto 190 loaded at 1 to 1. A huge drop in size and huge increase in wing loading can cause serious problems with any type of canopy. A small, highly loaded Lightning is not going to be forgiving just because it is square.

- Scott



Yes and no. A Stilletto is probably 100x more likely to malfunction at opening - even at a MUCH lighter wingloadiing - than a lightning, and I'd actually bet money I could do more radical stuff under the Lightning at 1.3 than a Stilleto at 1.1. I know I can do a LOT more radical maneuvers under my Diablo 88 than I would even consider under an elliptical 120. The difference in recovery is dramatic. You certainly can still kill yourself on it, but I guess the difference is that it responds a lot faster to a jab of the toggles and gets back to "canopy over your head" than any elliptical I've ever jumped.

Even much larger 9-cells take longer to recover from radical maneuvers than small 7-cells. Either if you don't try to "save yourself" can kill you. But if I did a radical 180 degree turn at 50 feet and them immediately tried to "save myself" by burying the toggles - I can honestly say I would rather be under a Lightning 113 than a Sabre 150. A spectre 150 would be a different story.

I've got ~2000 jumps on 7-cells and ~1500 jumps on 9-cells. In ANY kind of questionable circumstances - any sort of jump where I expect I may pull lower than usual. any sort of jump I might hit turbulence, or be "sun-has-set" or a host of other conditions - I ALWAYS choose any one of the multitude of 7-cells around and avoid the 9-cells like the plague. The 9 cells even in a similar size are noticably more radical than the more docile 7-cells. In any questionable circumstances I go 7...

W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never jumped a Stiletto.
About 16 months ago when I demo'd my first Lightning, it was a 160.
I found it to have very little forward drive, and an incredibly short recovery arc compared to my SA 170.
I also found it to respond more quickly to my input.

I think that for someone who isn't really well tuned in to canopy flight in general yet, these characteristics can be deceptively dangerous.

The very noticeable shorter recovery arc can tend to give the pilot an unrealistic sense of security..."OK, it recovers much more quickly from a turn / dive, so I'm less likely to make a 'Too low' turn"..."OK, I'm not moving as fast over the ground as I'm used to, so less speed means less danger."
These are dangerous thoughts, and while most of you may have never thought this way, a lot of newer pilots might think this way, whether they realize it or not.
While the Lightning recovers from a turn / dive more quickly, it will also put you in to a turn / dive more quickly. **again, I'm only speaking in comparison to my Sabre2 and a couple other similar canopies that I've flown**

As wayne pointed out also, the Lightning will have a greater descent Vs. glide ratio than most other canopies, and it's the vertical speed that usually does the most damage.

Also, while the Lightning will land just fine, it has much less flare to work with and the timing is much more critical than on any other canopy, as far as I'm aware. If needed, during the landing flare I can tweak my Sabre2 with a much more dynamic range available to me than I can with my Lightning. When I land my Sabre2, I feel like I'm 'flying' it to a stop, whereas when I land my Lightning, I feel more like I'm avoiding a high speed collision with the Earth.
What I always tell people is, you can land a Lightning just fine, but you only get one shot! The Lightning is much less forgiving with an imperfect flare.

Probably babbled a bit more than needed, but I'm very tired.

Anyway, I think that the combination of a shorter recover arc, less forward penetration, twitchier response, greater descent rate and a much shorter flare range can be quite deceptive to some people.

Just some things for newer jumpers to consider and keep in mind.

Peace and very good coffee to all,
Mike

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... but when a jumper is going to fly a specific canopy, the recommendations published by the manufacturer of that canopy are the ones that should be considered. If someone is jumping a Lightning, PD's recommendations for the Lightning are the ones that apply, not Atair's recommendations for the Cobalt.



I agree with that in part.... But when I was trying to get my instructors to let me jump a Lightning 126 (WL 1,25, I was jumping a Spectre 135, Lightning 143 and Safire 126 at the time), I took a good look at PD's charts. According to them, if I consider myself 'intermediate' I should be jumping a ..... 218!!! And a Spectre 150 BTW.

I asked Kolla about this when she was at our DZ, it's because Lightnings are difficult to land. Or something. Never did get a very good answer. Also the chart seems to make no difference between F111/hybrid/ZP canopies which I think is weird. Well anyway I never had problems with the 143, the 126 lands easier too. Some people DO have difficulties, I like to go see people land the first time, after being used to Stiletto's and such :S:D Some do just fine tho :)
Current regs here prevent me from jumping a 113 until I have 1000 jumps, I wouldn't be afraid to tho. Don't really need a 113 since I get by with lead (up to 8 kilos/17.5 lbs, for camerawork).

I do realize a 126 is a small canopy. I didn't really downsize to it (I only have 80 jumps on the Safire tho, sold it because I don't like 9cells that much) but it still felt 'snappy' on the toggles. I did learn a lot from the canopy I think, esp how to land my reserve which is the same size :)

I wasn't really pushed to jump a smaller canopy, but my instructors did make it clear they wouldn't mind being on smaller canopies themselves :S A 143 for me meant up to a 193 for my instructor depending on weight. This meant I could go do a 2-way, sure, but anything else, nope. Could never get 2 or 3 experienced guys together with a WL of 1. Now that I'm jumping the 126 I can go join most groups. So, it mainly was ME that wanted the downsize. Also, because the 143 is too big to get in my rig. Renting whole rigs became pretty expensive fast, esp if you have your own stuff already! Found out later the 126 didn't fit either tho :S so bought a whole 'nother rig esp for CReW...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When I land my Sabre2, I feel like I'm 'flying' it to a stop, whereas when I land my Lightning, I feel more like I'm avoiding a high speed collision with the Earth.
What I always tell people is, you can land a Lightning just fine, but you only get one shot! The Lightning is much less forgiving with an imperfect flare.



LOL I like the avoiding a collision part :D

I usually tell people, Hey, if I can do it.....?!

Then again, not all Lightings land the same. Mine lands okay (has sequential trim) but when somebody borowed it from me I borrowed his rotation Lightning back, landed way better! I wanna trade!!
Also some of the canopies we have here are shortlined, meaning you need to get extra speed for landing or else. Ouch. Never jumped on of those yet, but seen some results :S Will not jump one of those either, till I get used to high-performance landings on my own Lightning (always land it straight in, usually no riser input)...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

LOL I like the avoiding a collision part


Glad you enjoyed that;)
In the Lightning's defense, I've never had any trouble getting nice landings under mine (Sequential trim). OK, 2 or 3 on my face, but that's about it.

Well, I'm out the door and on to a flight to FL.
Scooter, thanks for the rig and we'll miss you this time.
We'll stack a few beers for ya'.

Stay safe,
Mike

If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0