CReW wing loadings...Please read

[chuckbrown 0]

I borrowed his rotation Lightning back, landed way better! I wanna trade!!
_________________________________________________

Just put an extra set of links on the rear risers & you'll get pretty close to rotation trim. I use extra links if I'm jumping with Triathlons since sequential trim is too floaty for the Tri. Plus, if you want to do LOTS of rotations the Lightning flys better in rotation trim (duh). I secure the slider bumpers with tacky thread length-wise on the outside (no needles) so it's very simple to change trim without fighting with the bumpers.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

I borrowed his rotation Lightning back, landed way better! I wanna trade!!
_________________________________________________

Just put an extra set of links on the rear risers & you'll get pretty close to rotation trim. I use extra links if I'm jumping with Triathlons since sequential trim is too floaty for the Tri. Plus, if you want to do LOTS of rotations the Lightning flys better in rotation trim (duh). I secure the slider bumpers with tacky thread length-wise on the outside (no needles) so it's very simple to change trim without fighting with the bumpers.

Yeah I do that a lot, since I'm always the floaty one it helps a bit. But it makes my canopy land harder! I did attach the slider bumpers so that I can add the links and remove them again without having to re-do the tacking every time Got to me the third or fourth time I had to go find the special needle...

Not sure which trim I want, and with the stuff I do know it doesn't really matter. Our CReW pro's here say to keep the sequential trim, but maybe that's because they want to borrow it from time to time When it needs a reline and I'm still only doing what I'm doing now, it's gonna spend the rest of it's life rotation-style

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[faulknerwn 36]

That is a good point. Short-lined Lightnings land much worse than ones with longer lines. My first Lightning 113 had 9 foot lines and it landed a lot better than my next one with 8 foot lines.

And the demo trim - man - that trim seems to land better than a lot of traditional canopies! It can definitely be harder to compare Lightning landings with the many different styles of trim and line length.

What I am curious about though is the fact that everyone is concerned with wing-loading. When Prodigies were a much more popular canopy, the wing-loading was ~1-1. While the Prodigy definitely doesn't turn fast, man,I find it 10x harder to pull out a decent landing on a Prodigy 150 than a Lightning 113. Even now I have a really hard time landing a Prodigy - and the wing-loading is a lot lighter. The Lightning I could flare like all the freefall canopies I'd jumped at the time - the Prodigies just don't.

W

[dragon2 0]

Yeah I know.... The Belgian team kept wanting me to jump Diamant's (thanx, Gadget ). French CReW canopy. Couldn't decently land a 160!!! No flare, and and it gives me the feeling I'm not strong enough to even STEER the thing Wierd canopies, and def not my favorite...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Gadget 0]

And was that because of the canopy or because of the canopist?
Are you you sunday on the crewload at Teuge?

If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes???
My logbook

[Genn 0]

Quote

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.

Question here.....Don't you think a 9 cell with 180 degree toggle input at 50 ft makes it a vertical descent (dive) as well?

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

Question here.....Don't you think a 9 cell with 180 degree toggle input at 50 ft makes it a vertical descent (dive) as well?

Sure. But the degree of verticality (and corresponding speed of descent) will vary according to wingloading and aspect ratio of the canopy. Clearly, higher wingloaded canopies will get more vertical than lower wingloads all else being the same. What I'm less sure about but I believe is that lower aspect ratio (7-cell) canopies will dive more steeply than higher aspect ratio (9-cell) canopies when they have the same fabric area (and are not elliptical). This is just a function of the overall flatter glide angle of the 9-cell.

But like I said before, I'm no expert here and if anyone else can add to or correct this, please do.

Wayne

[faulknerwn 36]

Quote

What I'm less sure about but I believe is that lower aspect ratio (7-cell) canopies will dive more steeply than higher aspect ratio (9-cell) canopies when they have the same fabric area (and are not elliptical). This is just a function of the overall flatter glide angle of the 9-cell.

Wayne

So much depends on the angle attack of the canopies. Me on a Prodigy 150 WAY WAY outsinks me on a Lightning 113. A Jedei 120 would outsink my Lightning in full flight, while I suspect a Stilletto or a Cobalt 120 would noticably outfloat me. So much depends on the trim of the canopy.

I know I've been on sunset 8-ways where I flew my Diablo 88 back on rear risers and made it back while people on 9-cell ellipticals didn't. A LOT depends on trim. The Prodigy 150 would outsink even my Cobalt 75 - they drop like rocks. But I've got a considerably higher wing-loading on my Cobalt. Obviously the Cobalt turns faster and flies faster, but its floatier. Prodigys are definitely large boats, but they're large boats with a hole in the bottom. That's because their angle of attack is so steep.

In general Brian Germain's canopies will sink considerably faster at full flight than the equivalent PD canopy. Brian normally trims his steeper than PD. Lightnings have such a variety of line length and trim its hard to make a generalization. Put demo trim on a Lightnings and it'll land as well as a Spectre.

I know as a newbie CRW dog it was a whole lot easier for me to fly and land the Lightning 113 than it was a Prodigy 150 or 175. Its not all about wing-loading.

W

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

What I'm less sure about but I believe is that lower aspect ratio (7-cell) canopies will dive more steeply than higher aspect ratio (9-cell) canopies when they have the same fabric area (and are not elliptical). This is just a function of the overall flatter glide angle of the 9-cell.

Wayne

So much depends on the angle attack of the canopies. Me on a Prodigy 150 WAY WAY outsinks me on a Lightning 113. A Jedei 120 would outsink my Lightning in full flight, while I suspect a Stilletto or a Cobalt 120 would noticably outfloat me. So much depends on the trim of the canopy.

I know I've been on sunset 8-ways where I flew my Diablo 88 back on rear risers and made it back while people on 9-cell ellipticals didn't. A LOT depends on trim. The Prodigy 150 would outsink even my Cobalt 75 - they drop like rocks. But I've got a considerably higher wing-loading on my Cobalt. Obviously the Cobalt turns faster and flies faster, but its floatier. Prodigys are definitely large boats, but they're large boats with a hole in the bottom. That's because their angle of attack is so steep.

In general Brian Germain's canopies will sink considerably faster at full flight than the equivalent PD canopy. Brian normally trims his steeper than PD. Lightnings have such a variety of line length and trim its hard to make a generalization. Put demo trim on a Lightnings and it'll land as well as a Spectre.

I know as a newbie CRW dog it was a whole lot easier for me to fly and land the Lightning 113 than it was a Prodigy 150 or 175. Its not all about wing-loading.

W

It's definitely not all about wing-loading when you're talking about different canopy types. What I was talking about was situations where the canopies were basically the same. A 135 Spectre will dive faster than a 150 with a toggle buried, that 's a fact of life. The 7-cell vs. 9-cell question is interesting though. Under the same wingloading will a Xaos-21 dive faster than a Xaos-27 due to its lower aspect ration? My guess is yes. Consider that the two important stages of canopy swooping are building up speed during descent and retaining that speed on plane out. Now, it's got to be the case that a 27 will retain its speed better than a 21 on plane-out, because of its superior glide angle. Will it also dive faster too? If that were the case, it would be so superior why wouldn't canopy manufacturers exclusively make 27s? Why wouldn't PD turn a Velocity into a 27? I'd be very curious to hear if anyone has any actual experience with this.

Wayne

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

And less experienced jumpers often make mistakes under canopy, which is why they need to jump more forgiving canopies.

Okay then, so here's the $50million question, that pertains specifically to this incident: Let's say this jumper, in this exact same scenario, who buries her toggle just as she says she did on this ~1.3; buries that exact same toggle in the exact same fashion instead on a lightning (same canopy ...except) at 1.0 - 1. Same end results, or not? ...and why?

Granted this calls for some supposition, but maybe it can be considered "educated" supposition at least.

Let's leave the component of the higher wingloaded canopy contributing to possibly painting this jumper in the corner a lot easier (although I personally believe this a valid consideration too) out of this for now.

In my own personal situation several years ago, and as I've recounted, I was under my 1.0-1 and was still seriously injured (so again, ABSOLUTELY AGREED that you can get injured, or even killed under almost ANY canopy); but I also truly beleive that had I been under my +1.2, matters most certainly would have been, likely much worse. This jumper on the other hand has replied that after doing THIS with her 1.3; that being under instead a 1.0 would have made absolutely no difference. Please feel free to clarify any of my thinking here if it is in any way out of place. Does either one or the other of us perhaps need to ammend our thinking or reconsider at all in this regard? I appreciate your considered input.

-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Nullified 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question here.....Don't you think a 9 cell with 180 degree toggle input at 50 ft makes it a vertical descent (dive) as well?

I was talking about normal full flight with no input.
Cold weather sucks,
Mike

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

[relyon 0]

Quote

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.

PD reserves are trimmed steeper than Lightnings and they're constructed from F111. As far as line lengths, a PR-176 is a mere 3-7/8" longer than a PS-176 (the other canopy sizes are similarly close). Lightning sequential trim is the flattest, followed by rotation trim, with demo trim being the steepest. Demo trim is identical to the trim used on both the PD and PR canopies.

I'm of the opinion that much of the lore about how hard Lightnings are to land comes from experience with competition short lined canopies, which most people don't jump. A good friend of mine had his 176 relined from competion (8') to the world record length (10') and the results were predictably dramatic (much better landing characteristics with longer lines).

Bob

[faulknerwn 36]

Quote

[
I was talking about normal full flight with no input.
Mike

Right. But consider the other "main" CRW canopy that was popular before the Lightning. My 150 Prodigy has a MUCH greater descent rate than my more heavily loaded Lightning. But the wing-loading is lighter. Does that make it safer? All in the eye of the beholder. I personally think a 1.3 loaded Lightning is much easier to land than a 1.0 loaded Prodigy.

The Lightning with sequential trim has a very flat glide angle. Its really not that difficult to land - often on hot no-wind days I'd often rather land my Lightning than my freefall canopies because its easier.

W