Deimian

Members
  • Content

    594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Deimian

  1. 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.
  2. I believe most webbing work is sewed with size 5 and 6 nylon cord.
  3. As the saying says: An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I had that a few years ago. I could use my old rig just fine, but my new rig had the BOC too high. My shoulder was messed up back then though. After PT and patience it is not a problem any more. Small javelins are notoriously short, but unless you are abnormally tall, I would suggest to check your shoulder and flexibility.
  13. The Collins lanyard requires a split housing for the riser opposite to the RSL side. You can't do that on the right riser. That's why rigs with the Collins lanyard have the RSL shackle on the right, so the lanyard is attached to the left cutaway cable, and most (all?) other rigs have the shackle on the left. Retrofitting the lanyard in a rig not designed to have it is not a small thing. I doubt many riggers are actually willing to do it, regardless of TSO violations or similar regulations.
  14. Flat tracking is what you should do on separation, absolutely. My point is that almost nobody experienced is doing full flat tracking jumps anymore. The only people that I am aware of that do flat tracking jumps, are new skydivers that can't (and shouldn't) do steeper angles. In this time and age every tracker worth their salt moved into angle flying and steeper angles.
  15. Tracking or angle jumps are always a bit "polemic". In Belgium we put them either first or "last of the fun jumpers" (ie: before the AFF and tandems.). If they go first the can go either right, left, or go in a 180° direction. If they go "last of the fun jumpers" they have to go either 90° right or left, depending on what the winds are doing. Since the opening altitude is very different between trackers and AFF and tandems, in case of mistakes you have at least added vertical separation besides the horizontal separation. Admittedly not ideal for AFF instructors, so I tend to put new trackers first in the load when I am organizing, and make them very very very clear that they should turn at least 90°. New trackers tend to track flat, so that matches also nicely with the fall rate of the belly flyers afterwards. If they are competent, you can put them anywhere. They will track perpendicular to jump run and that's it. But not every one is as competent as they think. Wingsuits should always be last IMO. Due to their fall rate they'll never be close to anybody else (unless they go down jumprun and there is a premature opening), and that has the added benefit of declogging the landing area, as they will land a few minutes after the first group. If you put them first the chances of a mid-air collision is higher, but also you are congesting the landing area.
  16. You have that backwards. Swooping canopies are trimmed nose down. They need that to get the necessary speed for a swoop. Accuracy canopies are trimmed very flat, so they are slow and give the pilot time to correct and hit the target. CRW canopies are something in between.
  17. That's interesting. Naïvely and without giving it much thought, I thought it was the opposite. The Katana, for example, is a notorious steeply trimmed canopy, and the front riser pressure is ridiculously low.
  18. Also harder and faster are not the same. "Hard" depends on time to decelerate and the speed difference (freefall vs under canopy). "Fast" depends on time to inflate. It is a subtle difference, but an important one. A grocery bag can open much faster than a Sabre 1, but for sure it won't slam you.
  19. That would be my guess. Dacron is far more bulky and less slippery than spectra, so I can image it is more prone to tension knots. But is is just speculation on my end.
  20. Deimian

    Lotus

    I had a Lotus Max 136. I was quite happy with the way it flew. For some time I had shitty openings, but I tracked that down to a fully magnetic bag that was a tad too small or whose magnets were not strong enough for that canopy. Once I replaced the bag with a normal bag the openings were fine. It is comparable to a Sabre 2. But honestly I am not sure the airlocks make a big difference. A bit for sure, but if the airlocks are deciding factor between jumping or staying on the ground, then you should stay on the ground regardless of the airlocks.
  21. That is a 360 camera, and the video is also 360. You can turn the POV in every direction by dragging with your mouse. I suspect you just played it and looked at the video. I am not sure if you can turn it on a phone, but I would assume you can. Regarding the twists, it looks to me like you pulled on your left risers and that induced the twists. I flew X-Fires 124, 113 and 102, and in 400 jumps with them I had twists twice (once with a 113, once with a 102). At least one of these twists was self induced (pulled half in a track and with a shoulder definitely lower than the other one). X-Fires open remarkably well. Honestly I doubt that at 340 jumps you are ready for that canopy. An X-Fire 124, at 1.57 is nothing to mess with. Most people recommend that at about 2x your experience. I think that that inexperience played a role in your twists. Be careful, I knew people with more experience, a less aggressive wing and less wingload, that crashed and died in otherwise perfect conditions.
  22. I think it is a "philosophical" question. Some people consider them a gimmick and unnecessary or even bad. I guess the people at UPT are some of those. The only clear advantage I see for the chest articulation, is how much easier it becomes to do MLW shortening/lengthening/replacement. On the flip side, you have more "flexibility" in an area that probably should not be that flexible (the harness could move around more, and it would be easier for it to slide down your shoulders when you are in head down-ish) I think they can be a great thing to have if you buy second hand and you are not sure of the fit of the harness on your body, but I would avoid them when buying a new harness.
  23. That's very good info, I didn't know that! The volume chart website does not mention it at all: https://rigginginnovations.com/skydiving-containers/curv
  24. Of course, we can agree on that. But comfort is subjective and varies from person to person. The points I made regarding taller folks are irrelevant if you are flexible enough to reach further up (I had a shoulder injury that kept on the ground for a few months because I couldn't reach my PC, so I have that more present than most) or if your disciplines do not involve using a lot the hip articulation. At the end of the day, YMMV.
  25. You said that your curv is the most comfortable rig you've ever had. I never contradicted that statement. I am not sure what your point is. If you think my reasoning is wrong, and have the time, please correct it.