cs_troyk

Hey Marcel; Very glad to hear plans for a pond in that area. I live in Colorado, but work in Oakland, so Skydive California will be the closest DZ when I'm out there. I was part of the group back in the day that put the Oregon pond in, and would be happy to help out any time I'm in Oakland and can work it into my schedule. Keep us updated on your progress.

That picture of the prototype from 2012 looks to be a 9-cell design - i.e., I think the prototyping being referred to in that thread was zp vs. sail, not 7-cell vs. 9-cell. I know there have been a lot of accusations and counterclaims about who was developing what at what time (some in jest, some serious). One thing I will say, though, is that PD would have more credibility in my eyes if they could spell the name of the inventor of the planform correctly. So far, I've seen it in their own literature and other communications as "Shulmann" and "Schumann", neither of which are correct. For those that are interested: http://www.spieltek.com/SunbirdSoaring/SoaringArticle/SchuemannWingPlanformArticle.pdf

You missed and important detail - the wingsuit pilot will most likely want to fly a larger suit with grippers. Hands will already be otherwise engaged with that. Better idea; Tow plain trails a rope with a hook on the end (with stabilizing fins so the hook is oriented upward). Wingsuit pilot wears a helmet with a ring attached to the top. It's important that the helmet have double-reinforcement to secure it - like, put a 2nd chin strap on your Oxygen. Once successfully docked, tow plane can speed up, and the WS pilot has full control range (within the confines of what the tow plane and rope allow).

No - you're not getting it. High-performance canopy landings are not compatible with AAD's that are currently on the market. When doing aggressive 450's and higher (and, at higher altitude DZ's, even 270's), there is no way for the AAD to distinguish the canopy maneuver from a cutaway+no reserve pull situation. With these types of landings, it is far more dangerous to have a turned-on AAD in your rig. We have lost at least one person, and had a number of close calls. If you're swooping aggressively and have your AAD turned on, it's not a matter of "if", but "when".

Current AAD's are not compatible with high performance canopy flight. Yes - I'm aware of the "speed" versions and their firing parameters, and stand by my statement. So that's still a reason not to have one - at least not in dedicated swoop rigs. I don't know if AAD's are considered to be compatible with CrW yet or not, but that could be another discipline where you don't necessarily want one.

Uhhh.... video or it didn't happen? ...scratch that...

Fundamentally, there's no way for the Cypres (or any AAD) to distinguish an aggressive high-performance approach from a cutaway/no-pull scenario (given the current designs). The acceleration profiles are the same and occur at similar altitudes. Back in 2003, I showed that the original Cypres could be made to fire under a fully open canopy (despite the advertising campaign at the time, "Good for Swooping"). The release of the "speed" version a couple years (and one high-profile fatality) later was a temporary leapfrog, but the landing techniques and equipment have once again improved to the point where AAD's and high-performance landings are simply not compatible. Choose one or the other.

I have broken a clavicle on opening before. To be fair, though, the opening was concomitant with a freefall collision, so there were additional forces at play. That was my right clavicle. My left had been broken in an auto accident (seatbelt got it), so now I have a matching set. In both cases, they healed slightly offset. With the extra bone growth, they are much stronger than they were before. In my (non-doctor) opinion, you'll be fine as long as you wait for it to fully heal.

You win the internets today, my friend. Legit LOL.

220-225 out the door (unleaded). AFF: Falcon 265 11-37: PD 210 38-575: Sabre 150's 576-850-ish: Stiletto 135 (and the Sabre 150's) 850-1040: Stiletto 120 and 135 1040-1100: Demo'ed FX 104 and FX 99 a number of times, but mostly stuck to the Stiletto 120. Ordered an FX 94 1100-1700: Mostly FX 94, mixed with the Stiletto 120 1700-1800: Transitioned from the FX to a VX 86 1800-... everything from a VX 68 to a VX 99, JVX's, JFX 126, XAOS's, and the occasional Velo. Each time I transitioned to a smaller x-brace, I weighted up over a number of jumps to what my new wingloading would be. Always felt comfortable under the new wing.

Didn't find it myself, but saw the pictures... molar strap.

So I did a bit of calculation based on the GPS data from the jump... In the dive, I was pulling a bit over 4.5 G's as I spiraled. The system, of course, was flying predominantly straight at the ground. I will be doing jumps with more instrumentation in the future to find what the exact attitude is. My wingloading in a static glide is 3.1:1 on this canopy. 4.5 G's is producing an effective wingloading of about 14:1. My exit weight is 225 lbs, so the thrust being produced is similar to what would be experienced in full glide by a 1000 lb. payload (under a VX74). Imagine a Mr. Bill with 4 or 5 people. Clearly, this is enough to significantly overcome the drag vector. When I'm able to jump with more sensors, it will be interesting to see if lift vector of the system is parallel to the ground, or whether it is actually past parallel and contributing to the downward acceleration. All this is on a 2000 model VX with the dbag/pilotchute still attached to the topskin. I'm pretty certain that, given a more efficent wing (JVX or JPX, full sail) and full RDS, I'll be able to get close to a 130MPH descent rate.

Can someone explain to me how, when terminal velocity for a belly flier is around 120mph, a vertical descent of almost the same speed is possible with a deployed canopy? Even the wings on a camera jacket can slow the wearer more than that! Someone that knows the physics of the system better can probably offer an actual explanation that makes sense, but I can at least describe what it feels like... First off, I think the JVX lineset made a significant difference. As I said earlier in this thread, I was hitting around 80MPH on this same VX skin under the original lineset. A couple of points, though; - the earlier tests were at a dropzone near sea level (200 ft MSL), and this latest jump was at a DZ at 5290 MSL, so my descent started from about 15K MSL - I'm sure my technique has improved, plus I was going for maximum descent, and not necessarily simulating a high-rotation landing as in the prior tests. I was wearing baggy shorts over some longjohns. I had done a couple freefall-terminal jumps earlier in the day and fallrate was about 125-130. I was jumping a removable slider, but left the dbag/pilotchute on the topskin (i.e., I think if I wore tighter clothes and went full-RDS, I could probably get another 5MPH - will try again soon). There was "noticeable" G-force in the turn, and I was completing each full rotation in just over 2 seconds. But it actually felt like the G's built up more as I evened the input to the harness exiting the dive. In the future, I'll be jumping with more instrumentation so that I can get a true reading on the actual G's that are built up during the different phases of the flight. The best layman's guess I can give as to why it's possible to hit these kinds of speeds with such a large surface area (i.e., the whole front nose of the canopy + the lines + the jumper) is that the canopy is producing an incredible amount of lift and the speedy rotations are converting that power into downward flight. Regardless of whether that's a good explanation, it sure is fun!

Is she full-sail? If so, does this mean your new supplier is producing colors other than just black and white?

This was a sustained dive using harness input, held for approximately 20 seconds from an altitude of 10.5K down to 5K.

Just finished some jumps today on the VX74 @ 3.1:1, trying out the new JVX lineset. Sustained descents of 110mph measured by Flysight.

At sea level, about 80 MPH under an 86 @ 2.6:1 and a 74 @ 3.1:1. This is data that I gathered back in 2003 for an article in Skydiving Magazine where I demonstrated that an Expert CYPRES could be made to fire under canopy. Around that time, a friend and I did a Mr. Bill on an FX 94 and, based on outside video and our knowledge of the altitude loss in the turn, we calculated around a 130 MPH descent rate on an aggressive spiral. In Colorado (5500 AGL, usually around 7K density), I average around 90 MPH on most landings with a 92 and the 86, slightly faster on the 74. I have spiked my 99 at just over 100 MPH. These numbers are coming from a Flysight GPS. I've heard claims of 106 MPH, which is what I would expect on a well-executed aggressive "competition" approach at these altitutdes.

I'm assuming a ZP JVX.... Maybe close enough to judge - my old skool VX 74 fits into an Infinity I-11 SN, sized for a regular 9-cell main in the 97-109 range. I can pack it loose to fit into an I-22 (not scary loose by any means), which is sized for a 107-120.