JohanW

My impression of the Aerodyne Vision was rather favourable as "a better Stiletto than the Stiletto." Same playfulness in flight, but with a longer recovery arc. Unfortunately, if I look at the website, it seems to be out of production. Nothing else comes close, IMO. The Stiletto was a very good design, and it is far from obsolete. The one thing everybody rightly complains about, the short recovery arc, was a design decision at the time - it's a feature, not a bug. (It seems designed for togglewhipping, not swooping.) Johan. I am. I think.

So, what was it? Johan. I am. I think.

The center cell top skin is almost always the first to fail, because it sees by far the most wear (packing!). Replace the center cell top skin and the lineset (and, in this particular instance, the slider), and the canopy is as good as new. No, other cells will not fail anytime soon (probably ) just because the center one did. They just don't wear as fast. Given that the canopy is apparently worth the lines and the slider, the only additional cost is the $250 for the center cell. It'll be as good as new with that, so my vote goes to repairing it. Any second hand Stiletto you could buy for $ 550 will very probably not be in the condition this one will be after the repairs. Unless, of course, the colours are ugly. And keep in mind you can never sell it for what it's worth - you'll have to jump it to recover the expenses. At $ 1 / jump, after repairs, the canopy should be good for another 500 jumps. That's not unreasonable to expect. Not a rigger - but I own two Stilettos I'll never sell but jump and loan out on occasion. Johan. I am. I think.

Static line round, fast plane, (soft, flat) Russian DZ? Johan. I am. I think.

Or even just with the police force. Then again, when there's photos of you passed out in a strip joint, they likely won't keep digging for the photos of what you were doing there before you passed out. Johan. I am. I think.

My experience is limited and I don't compete. Apart from a few jumps on a Xaos 93 I can really only compare the Sensei and the Velocity, both mostly jumped at a size of [email protected] (a few jumps on both one size smaller). But I definitely have a preference. Both have decent openings and were (much to my surprise) easy and relaxed to fly. But the Sensei is trimmed a lot flatter than the Velo, the front riser pressure is higher and the dive levels out sooner after you stop turning. That made the Sensei a lot better for recreational HP CRW with the Sabre 2 a friend has (slight touch of the rear risers on the Sensei, slight touch of front risers on the Sabre 2, and we flew perfectly relative). But the Velo made the turn and dive to final a *lot* differently than the Sensei, and it just was more like my own turn. I had to adapt to the Sensei, the Velo was perfectly adapted to me (cq my turn). So I bought the Velo, as an everyday canopy. It's so well suited to my style and feel of flying a canopy that I can jump it, in that size and at that wingload, on almost any jump I make (except for wingsuit jumps, CRW with (much) bigger, lightly loaded canopies and, of course, Classic Accuracy). I might be happy as well with a Crossfire, Sabre 2 or Xaos, then again I might not (I know I would not have been this happy with a Katana or a Sensei), and I already knew I was *very* happy with the Velo, the price was right (not free, just worth every penny) and it's a PD product. So I did not prefer the best opening, the longest recovery arc or the steepest dive. If you want to compete, you will want what you can ultimately .. with practice .. force to go the fastest or farthest. I preferred what matched my flying style. The only way to find that out .. is demo, demo, demo.

Suggestion: ProTrack. Preference: ProTrack. You are not doing yourself a favour by expressing a preference in advance, but not expressing why not. L&B's service and support are second to none, canopy beeps are overrated, and if you take some time to find a second hand offering, you'll have everything you want and some things you didn't know you wanted at a bargain. Johan. I am. I think.

The full link would be http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=439029523960. Johan. I am. I think.

It's in 4 parts, but we have similar exams for A, B and C in the Netherlands. It's been a while, I don't remember the exact subjects, there is no Aerodynamics part as such, but I think the subject is in there somewhere. Johan. I am. I think.

Hi. My name is Johan, I have a Tri 120 and I love it. (Why is this thread sounding like treelovers anonymous? ) Johan. I am. I think.

Low 60s, in a track in an RW suit. That's instantaneous speed from a ProTrack read-out. 6'1" 220#. Can't entirely rule out burble effects, but do keep the ProTrack in a pants pocket, not in the helmet. Johan. I am. I think.

Start with double front, straight-in approaches. If you have to help the canopy recover to level flight with toggles, you were in the corner. (If this doesn't mean anything to you, get coaching.) Get coaching, get video. Stay away from swooping altis until you are consistent in your setup *and* can make a decent landing on a fouled-up setup. Learn what to do when things don't go perfect. Get coaching. Remember to finish your flare. If you have to run, you put it down early. Continue flying as long as possible (and continue flying when you already have weight on your feet but haven't fully landed yet). Talk to people, read up a lot, and get coaching. Did I mention a coach is really, really useful? The big problem is finding a coach you can connect with, who can teach, who knows what he or she is doing and is conservative and safe in teaching you the skills you need. You need a lot more skills than yanking on a frontriser or two; most of all, you need judgement. Developing that is going to take time. But your coach (and mentor) will tell you that. If he doesn't, get a coach, a real one, a good one, not this fraud. This advice worth what you paid for it. Johan. I am. I think.

The outcome would have been very different under a 170. The lines would have been longer and he would have had more fabric over his head. So his recovery arc would have been shorter, his angle of arrival would have been less and his speed would have been lower. Yes, he would have had the accident anyway. But the point of flying a less unforgiving canopy is not to protect you from making mistakes - it's to keep you alive to learn from them as you will inevitably make them. F*cking up is inevitable, even if *you* of course never will. But you can stack the odds in your favour by flying a wing that will make the resulting impact more survivable. Johan. I am. I think.

You are assuming care and attention to detail affect the opening. This is true for a very limited number of details only, IME. Decent, experienced packers know which details matter and which do not. You clearly have not seen me packing my own rig. If and when I pack for other people, I will complain if they don't set their brakes and so forth. But I will not actually pack a chute with a collapsed slider - I don't want blood on my hands. In really extreme cases, I might refuse to pack it, but I still would not pack it with a collapsed slider. But I'm not a professional packer and I haven't encountered any really extreme cases yet. Johan. I am. I think.

Empuria actually is a rather difficult dropzone and quite a difference from Seppe in terms of people in the sky, size of dropzone, obstacles, turbulence, difficult spots. (You are from Seppe, right? Ever jumped at Texel, Teuge or Rotterdam? At least they have the comparably big planes, with the crowd in the sky and the sucky spot, but their dropzones are still a lot more big and open than Empuria's.) My conservative advice would be to do some canopy coaching jumps first and doing the FS instruction later. What did your own instructors tell you to take into account when going to Empuria? You did discuss this with them, right? They're a wealth of information; use it. And have fun!

One of the many, many reasons to always wear gloves. Even when it's a hundred degrees in the shade and you're otherwise nekkid, gloves are still a good idea. (For landing, shoes have advantages as well.) Johan. I am. I think.

Hop out of the plane facing the tail with your back to the relative wind; bring your knees up, look up and back and do a back flip. When you see the planet come around again (or again, or again), arch. I don't know if that's not what I do, but it actually feels more like not bringing the knees up, instead push your heels and your arms back a little, while arching. More of a layout loop. When coming up to belly to Earth, give leg input early, or you'll flip through vertical and go head high before getting flat again. Or transition to bootiefly immediately and say you meant to do that. (Keep in mind you'll be lined up with jumprun, so you need to do a 90° turn somewhere to face perpendicular, as explained above.) If you stay flat, back to Earth, headdown, slightly backflying, in the relative wind (coming in horizontally right after exit!), you can keep looking at the plane for a couple of seconds before giving input and looping back to belly. That's more difficult to fly though. A back layout exit is about as close as I get to freestyle, and feels quite sweet when done well.

Style series. 360 left, 360 right, backloop. Or left right. Or frontloop. Nobody says you have to do them by the book. Turns. Left 90, right 180, left 270, right 360. Barrel rolls. Instability recovery. Floating exits, diving (up and down) exits, back to belly ("gainer") exits (those are fun!). Tracking, good idea, but as said be sure to track perpendicular to jumprun (actually, this goes for most exercises). If you're not being grabbed by the neck and lifted, you can track harder and flatter. Work on your boxman and mantis position. Both have uses. Kneeflying (bootieflying). Backslides (not usually a problem) and forward movement (you can always give more legs. video helps though, you'll never believe you can *always* give more legs). Diving and braking. Falling slow and fast. And that's just belly freefall. Under canopy, there's another whole world, and it's more important than freefall. Talk to a coach, and get exercises. No need to start freeflying until you can turn decent points in 4-way, do some impromptu CRW afterwards and land accurately whatever circumstances are thrown at you. All of this can be practised on solos, but the reference someone you're jumping with provides is necessary as well sometimes. Ask around, you may find a new friend at the same level. Empuria is plenty busy enough. Johan. I am. I think.

Because you can jump the same canopy as a main and a reserve. This makes things easier on the user. The military appreciates this. It also allows you to discard the main after it's been used up, pack the reserve as the new main, and get a new reserve. More cost effective. Incidentally, I recently handled a Predator as a main. It is fully ZP. (Yes, really, I checked.) I would not want to subject my rigger to that as a reserve. If it's usable as a reserve, I now understand why it opened as it did. And that was subterminal and with an aftermarket pocket on the slider. Ouch. Does anybody have experience with larger sliders on it? Does that make for better openings? The stock slider is normal in width but rather short front to back. Johan. I am. I think.

The Tri's Team Teuge used to fly for rotation, 120s and 99s, were setup with *very* short brakes and would land like homesick bricks. But for a freefall (wingsuit) setup that would not be applicable. I can't recommend it, of course. But if you're used to ludicrous wingloads, I'd say give it a shot and find out if it still flies. And flares. I honestly don't know if it'll still fly like you want to. Let us know how it goes! But honestly, why not a Crossfire or Xaos? Those have the openings you're looking for and can be loaded higher than a Tri, I'd think. (Or enjoy the wingsuit flight and accept the canopy ride under a less extreme canopy and/or wingload ..) Johan. I am. I think.

We usually do the Paraski thingy in Germany, Austria or Italy .. they have mountains. Johan. I am. I think.

I don't like it either. And when jumping Paraski from the helicopter, guess who gets to sit by the door because the teammate that *should* exit first likes it even less? No, no door. And the pilots have a tendency to hug the side of the mountain for as long as possible too. You are not alone. But I'm afraid neither of us is ever going to like it. Johan. I am. I think.

For some reason I remember Brian Germain teaching that..... or am I just wrong? Maybe he taught not to do that? I give a little front risers in turbulence. Is that okay? speed is your friend for many of the newer canopies partial brakes was a correct response on older 7 cells to help open the nose for more inflation - newer canopies appreciate more speed over inlet angle - someone help me with this one - I don't think I'm explaining as clearly as it's needed Wendy - the brakes thing I still see taught (incorrectly for most canopies) today. So inducing more speed via front risers is correct? I get what you are saying and actually I think that is exactly what Brian says about modern canopies. Actually, what Brian teaches is inducing speed by gentle harness turns. No riser input, but induced speed does help. More speed means speed changes induced by turbulence are smaller, relatively speaking. Or maybe this is last week's teaching already also .. Johan. I am. I think.

2.3 ?!? You're braver than I am! I fly a 120 @ 1.8, and that's a freefall setup. I don't think I would want to put Dacron on it, reinforce the nose, load it even higher and still land it. I can land the 120 just fine, but it's pushing the envelope. Landing from half brakes is getting interesting already, I don't usually stand up those. It's still a great canopy, but for wingloads over 2 I wouldn't trust a Katana, let alone a Triathlon; just seems like pushing the overload a bit too far. Aren't PD doing something with experimental crossbraced CRW-canopies? That sounds like a better plan to me. Someone on here will know about that. Johan. I am. I think.

"Somebody else sucked even worse .." Johan. I am. I think.