Deimian

Members
  • Content

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Deimian

  1. Seems to me like new more "clicky" buttons, and USB-C instead of microUSB for charging.
  2. I think the variability is too high to get anything really useful out of it in a forum. Besides accounting for WL and canopy, you have to consider the altitude of the dropzone and the speed of the turn (are people snapping the turn or doing a slow controlled turn whipping it at the end?). And of course the style of turn (just fronts, just harness, both, rears). Also some people start with double fronts before they turn. Which altitude do you take there, when you start doing double fronts or when the turn actually starts? For what is worth I turn between 900 and 650 feet on my Gangster 90 at around 2.05 WL. When I am late I make a much quicker turn than when I am early on that range. At 900 feet I am hanging on double fronts and start turning with harness and fronts. The last 90° are quicker than the first 180.
  3. No, of course not. But this particular dropzone did (and grew up to Caravans today, after a phase with Pilatus Porter). Sorry if it was not clear, didn't mean to imply that all dropzones were small in the 80s.
  4. We have a guy at our dropzone. He is a lovely guy, very nice fellow. He started jumping in the late 80s/early 90s with his wife. They both quit when the got their kids. He started again like 6 years ago. One day, after jumping, his wife was there. At some point in the conversation she said "I don't get why you need all these rules, patterns and recommendations. We were all able to fly our canopies safely before without any of that." I think she didn't realized how much of a difference it makes, to have 18 people in the sky at the same time with wingloads from 0.9 to 2.5, with respect to her times, when they had 4 people in the sky all of them with 200 sqft canopies. The size of the loads and the variety of wingloads makes proper canopy flying critical. Everyone should fly their canopies with everyone else in mind. And that involves in many cases not spiralling just for shit and jiggles. If you want to spiral down when you have 3 other canopies in the sky and you are perfectly aware of where they are, and how they fly, go for it. But that simply does not apply in bigger dropzones with loads with massive differences in wingloads.
  5. Totally agree (in the context of canopy flying). But it is difficult to maintain vertical separation if there are spiralling canopies in the pattern. Maintaining vertical separation can become quite difficult in that situation. As you said, I guess that you and me understand "spiralling" slightly different. I understand spiralling as quick turns of at least 360 degrees, often more. All the points you mentioned are totally valid, but for me those are canopy exercises that are typically recommended to be done in hop and pops with clear airspace. I wouldn't recommend removing one brake in a normal load with 18 people, as an example. Many other exercises (like harness turns, swoop practices) are rarely more than 270 degrees during a full altitude jump, and that is fine IMO in a normal load, provided that you don't get on the way for others. A typical freefall time for belly flyers is about 60 seconds. Freeflyers fall for 45 to 55 seconds. So normally the last belly group opens more or less at the same time than the first freefly group. You hit the nail on the had when you said "it doesn't take long for the [...] heavier loaded canopies to be under [...]". But that does not hold true with spiralling canopies, as they are constantly changing their fall rate. That is exactly the source of the problem. I explained all the relevant points I could think of as good as I could, none of them were "I have mad skillzz". Let me summarize it, maybe it was too much: Canopy collisions are a real problem. The point is not "I have mad skillz, get out of the way", the point is "canopy collisions kill people, everyone should get out of everyone else's way". I was advocating for conscious flying and proper "canopy etiquette" long before I was jumping heavily loaded canopies. Heavily loaded canopies can't stop falling from the sky until other canopies land, but other canopies can stop spiralling if there is potential for conflicts. Do you have any counter argument to that, or is insinuating that I am a hot shot wannabe and a dick all you have?
  6. Spiralling should be heavily discouraged everywhere with more than 2 canopies in the air, except if you are the lowest one and with a fall rate in full flight comparable to the ones above you. It develops 0 skills, it is an unsafe practice for the one doing it (can collide with other canopies that he/she didn't see) and for others (don't know where to go because the one spiralling is not flying predictably) and it gets boring rather quickly, so it is not even fun compared with other things you can do under canopy if you have the skills for it. To minimize conflict under canopy, you want to maximize both horizontal and vertical separation, and "pipeline" the canopies landing. A typical situation in medium size dropzones is having 18 canopies in the air at the same time. If you are in the middle of the bunch and have a canopy loaded at, let's say, 1.5, the safer way for everyone is if the heavily loaded canopies after you overtake you up high, and the vertical separation between these 2 groups is not reduced after that. That way there are no conflicts close to the landing pattern. If you start spiralling they can't overtake you at a safe altitude, since you artificially accelerated your fall rate, just to stop to your normal rate as soon as you stop spiralling. If you start-stop and then start and stop again, that makes it even worse. Like a car in the highway driving on the left lane and slamming on the brakes just to swerve to the right, accelerate, move again to the left lane and slam the brakes again. So the ones behind with highly loaded canopies need to do either of these: - Overtake you in the pattern. Take into account that the *last* turn for many canopies starts at 1000 feet. So your pattern starts when theirs finishes. Nobody wants to overtake or be overtaken at this point, every one should be focused on the ground and landing safely, not on canopy slalom. - Land out. Not always an option, depends on the DZ. - Hold on to breaks as much as possible, forcing everyone behind to do the same. This is not always possible, as even in brakes some canopies that are heavily loaded fall faster than other lightly loaded canopies in full flight. All these options are bad. This situation is quite common, as belly flyers typically fly lightly-to-medium loaded canopies and exit first due to free fall drift, and freeflyers have a higher tendency to fly medium-to-highly loaded canopies and exit after the belly groups. The exit order helps to keep horizontal separation between groups, but minimizes vertical separation as both groups open at a similar time and altitude. To fix that heavily loaded canopies should land first for everyone's sake, but can't do that if the lightly and medium loaded canopies are spiralling. Some would blame the small canopy and say they have the right to spiral down. Others would blame the spiralling pilot for lack of canopy etiquette and being equally skill-less and a dick.
  7. That's quite a statement. All these canopies have different opening, flight and flare characteristics. In some cases very different. Not to mention company support and resell value.
  8. I think we are going to disagree on this. Basic aerodynamics are pretty easy stuff and you don't need much to move from 0 to a level that allows you to go fast and far. Optimizing it to the point it is now is a completely different story of course, but creating airfoils and testing them, and simply go by trial and error (and a bit of intuition) is not complicated. You can work out 70% of the stuff like that. The problem now is not about electricity. Electricity and electric powertrains are not the complicated part in having mainstream electric airplanes. The challenge is in the chemistry of the batteries. And that can't be worked out with pencil and intuition IMO. The analogy pretends to reflect simply that you can't make stuff out of nothing. Hoping that a given technology can evolve limitless is very naïve IMO.
  9. Sure, and that's not good. But I think it is not the same asking "which kind of canopy hold longer in rears", which is valuable knowledge, and "I have 200 jumps, I am ready for a VC90, where can I get one without too much supervision?". OP has been in the forum since 2008, so I would also hope he is not a dumb hot shot. But maybe I am too naïve
  10. I disagree. Engineering and technology are like a gold mine. If there is a gold vein, you can extract gold with simple tools. You'll be faster with power tools than with a mattock and a shovel, but in both cases you can get lots of gold in short time. That's what happened 100+ years ago. But if the mine runs dry you need to dig much more to get a tiny bit of gold out of it, if at all, even with the best possible tools. That's where we are now. Aviation started at a vein, and slowly but surely the mine is running dry. It ain't magic, there are limits to what can be done, and the closer you get to the limit the more difficult it gets to push the envelope. You can't make gold out of nothing. But if you are an optimist you can always hope for finding a new vein that would help to push things faster. Or maybe there is still enough gold to be found, spread in some cubic kilometres of useless rock. Maybe there is a new battery technology about to be discovered, or maybe we can refine sufficiently the existing technologies to make the electric aircraft a practical reality. But maybe not, and that'd be it, the electric airplane would never be mainstream.
  11. This is solid advice. But this particular question can be at least partly answered without a coach IMO, of course taking into account that communication in person can be more accurate than in a forum, since the chance for miscommunication is lower in person. To answer the original question: There are many many things that influence how long you can keep in rears. It is not simply a matter of "Crossfire vs JFX". Let me go over some of them. The fact that a canopy is trimmed flatter than another one, does not mean that it holds longer in rears. It is almost the opposite. When you pull on your rears you are effectively altering the trim of the canopy. If the trim is already flat, you have less giggle room to produce changes in the canopy behaviour without stalling it. Cross-braced canopies are more efficient due to the way the top skin holds its shape (21-27 "compartments" instead of 7-9 cells). That means that all other things being equal, they create more lift, which means that the same input on rears have a greater effect in producing lift at a given airspeed. Another thing that greatly affects how long you can hold in rears without sinking is airspeed. The higher the airspeed, the more lift the canopy produces, so the longer you can keep on rears. So you might hold longer on a Crossfire going at a certain speed, than in a JFX going at half of that speed. But JFX is a more steep canopy, so at the same wingload you are probably going to be faster on a JFX than on a Crossfire. Yet another thing is parasitic drag in the trailing edge. So a canopy with miniribs will have less parasitic drag, and is therefore more efficient, and can hold longer on rears than one without. On that sense, a JFX 2 is better than a JFX 1 for instance. So, to summarize, the *chances* that you can hold longer on rears on a JFX than on a Crossfire are very high, but you can't say that in all circumstances you can hold longer on rears on a JFX.
  12. Be careful with stall practices. Stalling with rear risers happens quickly but recovers for the most part gently. Stalling with toggles takes normally longer, but the recovery can be more problematic and through you in a spin/twists if done asymmetrically. You don't want that close to the ground.
  13. I don't think that is a big problem (it might be a small problem though, as toggles are not where you expect them, and if you are low, every second to grab your toggles help). But uneven release of riser covers during opening can very easily put you in twists. If you have line twists under your reserve, and the reserve starts spinning, then you have a big problem. There have been a few fatalities like that. I think Eric is coming out as an angry-whiny man with some agenda to cover, as some others pointed out. But this does not invalidate the argument, it simply makes the person with the argument annoying. I think it is a good thing that flaws, big and small, are pointed out. Just knowing the issues the gear has, can the gear be improved. And manufacturers do not always see the issues in their product straight away. A friend of mine had a very serious incident some years ago due to a design issue on his gear. I would have preferred that someone coming out as a whiny annoying old man with limited online social skills found out before my friend, so my friend wouldn't have shat his pants or worse.
  14. Line twists are caused by asymmetries during opening, which can be caused by various things. In skydiving, wind gusts is not one of these things. Don't overthink it, they can happen. Don't get too relaxed about the canopy flight though. Once you are able to fall and pull stable, they are one of the most dangerous part of the sport, specially when you start getting smaller canopies (and by smaller I mean simply smaller than what you have now, not small, you don't need an 80 sqft canopy to get hurt or hurt somebody else) Welcome and have fun!
  15. GT-R is a more advanced canopy and not really adequate for somebody flying crossbraced for the first time. Think of it like a Valkyrie, Leia or (W)airwolf. For going from X-Fire to something more advanced probably JFX2 or Gangster are better options.
  16. I believe most webbing work is sewed with size 5 and 6 nylon cord.
  17. As the saying says: An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
  18. A friend of mine died 5 years ago. He had 2 rigs that used regularly. On one he had a Stiletto 120. On the other one an Odyssey 120. They were even the same colours (mostly). These 2 canopies have quite different recovery arcs. He made a low turn. I don't recall which canopy he used on that jump, but I wonder if he was jumping the Odyssey, but expecting the recovery arc of the Stiletto. I think that is something very important to consider if you go for 2 different canopies in your rigs.
  19. Strictly speaking, he's right. Actually, strictly speaking, there is no skydiving canopy that has a Schumann planform. The "original" (for lack of a better word) Schumann planform is a planform for gliders, with very high ellipticity on the leading edge (towards the wingtips), and a straight trailing edge. Gliders have wings that have a much longer span than any skydiving canopy, so no skydiving canopy can have a Schumann planform, if we are strict with the terms. But if we abuse the term and apply to "high ellipticity on the leading edge and straight trailing edge", I think it is not bad if we abuse it a bit more and apply it to "high ellipticity on the leading edge and straight-ish (as compared with the leading edge) trailing edge". And that applies to all the canopies I listed, if I am not mistaken.
  20. You are right, but changing planform does not necessarily mean "optimize everything for performance". Things like openings, and harness responsiveness have nothing to do with performance. Other stuff, like how far the wing can carry you in rears for a given airspeed has to do with performance, but has nothing to do with the aggressiveness of the canopy (aggressiveness is for me, in this context, how much speed you can produce by making it dive). The top line is both very high performant and very aggressive. Nothing speaks against having high performance (lift produced, distance in rears, flare power) and medium aggressiveness (don't dive until the end of days) One can always tweak and tame down some aspects. A "VC" with Schumann planform is not necessarily a VK. The Gangster from Fluid Wings is Schumann, but dives less than the VC for instance. The X-Fire is Schumann and it is not even cross-braced, and it dives less than the Gangster. A "VK lite", with the great openings of the VK, its rears, its harness responsiveness, its flare power, but with a shorter dive sounds good to me. I can imagine a future PD progression like SA3 -> KA2 (updated Katana with a bit less dive than the actual one, but all the good things of canopies like the X-Fire) -> "VK lite" -> VK In any case, that's just my view, I am also not a canopy designer. Maybe I am just missing something.
  21. I see a few reasons: - Schumann planform canopies tend to have more lift than traditional elliptical canopies, and they tend to hold longer in rears. I believe that is one of the reasons why paragliding canopies have been using this planform for a long time. - They tend to open better. At least I haven't seen any Schumann canopy that does not open nicely and on heading most of the time (X-Fire, all the Fluid Wing canopies, Valkyrie, Petra, Leia, Odyssey EVO). Maybe it is just coincidence, but seems like a big coincidence to me. - They tend to be more responsive on harness. - Connected to previous point: All the advanced cross-braced canopies are Schumann nowadays. I think an entry level cross-braced Schumann canopy would make the transition into the advanced ones a bit more natural Asking the other way around: why not? I think the only reason not to do it is that it requires a bigger investment in R&D than a smaller update of an existing canopy. But since we have high end crossbraced canopies and advanced 9 cell regular canopies using Schumann planform, I see no reason to don't think it is a good idea. Entry-level crossbraced canopies are right in between these 2 categories.
  22. Don't get me wrong, I think the JFX2 is a nice canopy and definitely an improvement over the original. But I think they left some interesting things on the table. The (probably) most important one is having the chance of having a Schumann planform canopy suitable for people that is jumping cross-braced for the first time. Just my 2 cents.
  23. The same is true for almost all manufacturers. The entry-level cross-braced canopies are all old designs, except the Gangster from Fluid Wings. The JFX2 is a nice refreshment, but looks to me basically like a JFX1 with a couple of small changes, not a completely new canopy. I really would like to see in this category a canopy with inflatable stabilizers, miniribs, and Schumann planform. Maybe these things would drive the manufacturing cost too high for this category? BTW: The Katana also needs an update
  24. That is what skydivers that don't go to tunnels regularly think. Tunnels have evolved pretty much in the same direction than skydiving. To offer a carnival ride kind of experience for people that want to try it once and move on to the next thing. All of the tunnels I know have their main source of income in first timers that will never come back (or at least not regularly). Protecting themselves from bad press or liability when a first timer come with a bad shoulder is just common sense. Now, in this case, this is not a first timer, so they might act differently.
  25. I am not sure that the fact that we have spring loaded PCs for reserves is a good argument for defending them for mains. Reserves are special in a few ways: - AADs need to be able to activate the opening sequence, so you need the spring loaded PC for that, no way around it. - They are most of the time activated after a cutaway, more often than not caused by a spinning main and activated via RSL or MARD, so the large burble created by a wingsuit or a balloon suit are simply not there. - The PC does not stay connected to the canopy. Different use cases and boundary conditions, so different solutions. I am quite sure that if wingsuiters start relying on spring loaded PCs we'd start seeing soon a lot of videos of PCs being sucked in their burble.