sundevil777

As discussed earlier in the thread, a smaller pilot chute cap is a proven countermeasure for small rigs with fully enclosed pc. Do you know if that or other changes are being considered?

Thanks for finding that. Perhaps the Jedi folks didn't comply with a requested announcement date from Cookie. Some find it hard to keep a secret.

https://jediairwear.co.uk/2022/02/g35-cookie-helmet/ I came upon this while wandering gear sites, looks like some interesting features that might be good for photographers and tunnel flyers. It certainly looks like a new design in many ways such as the front chin vent, but can't find info on the cookie website or elsewhere. I don't remember this being introduced, wondering if it had a very short life on the market or what?

Of course it is clear what that slotted plate is. They were likely doing a lot of tests, with a lot of re-closing of the container. If in the rush to do many tests the mistake of leaving the plate was made, it should be admitted instead of silence we've had since that video was released. I do understand now that the plate is likely not relevant to the situation, as certainly we can all see there's more to this than just a couple guys setting up a failure on purpose or by neglect. Again, it would be nice if the plate would be acknowledged, but I no longer think it matters.

Please help me understand why a suit which is specifically marketed as an indoor suit might not be so great for skydiving. Used suits designed for the tunnel might be a good deal if it fits my desire to have something relatively tight instead of my belly suits for the occasional freakflying experiments. Is it a matter of durability, grippers? Thank you.

Perhaps what should be considered impressive about it will be the low cost. Many other reasons why this is much easier for garage engineers than jets.

When Boeing puts so much into it, could become real! https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-invests-450-mln-flying-taxi-developer-wisk-2022-01-24/

http://www.paragear.com/skydiving/10000162/M5480/

With just that info, I would guess you'd be easy to fly with. Are your instructors telling you to arch more to fall faster or for stability?

I only switched to a digital alti after 30 years with analog. I first bought a Viso II, but quickly switched and found a used Neptune II. The Skyer has some of the same negatives as the Viso/Ares. The font is a very low aspect ratio, and uses the simpler, awful 7 segment type display. I find the Neptune/N3/Atlas display much easier to read because of the higher aspect ratio and rounded font. It is easy to dismiss the importance of this, but it is real. Also, the Skyer and Viso/Ares show too many digits in freefall, Showing beyond the "hundreds" digit for feet is not useful, and becomes a distracting blur. Even when using meters, 2 digits is probably enough,I doubt a third digit is useful.

this one? https://skyer.online/en/shop Are Russian skylife Vega/Sirius/Orion altimeters popular over there?

Whether accidental or intentional, it hasn't been explained, and is important.

The "unidentified" object looked to clearly be the type of packing aide-plate with a slot for the closing loop. For a long time it has been called unidentified, but isn't it obvious?

Skydivers are OK with how things are in general. Not hard to understand.

Of course the canopy can inflate. It depends on how much force it takes to clear the risers. Cutting away and clearing the risers first could take the rest of a person's life. The landing could have been gentle. The trouble with the canopy trailing from the foot would have been minimized by just taking control of the reserve canopy and going into fairly deep brakes. Slow your airspeed and the canopy would not have so much drag. Even if a person lands that way with little to no flare, it would have been better than the unguided crash.

Perhaps the various AAD mfgs should be consulted regarding whether their units will decide something has gone haywire (bad data-climb rate too high to be believable), and shut off! You never know...Ha!

Might it also have been you really WANTED it!?

Now it makes sense, the high cost of the plane is offset by being able to offer training flights to special forces operators needing to practice from those altitudes. Seems reasonable to beat the cost of using a C-17. I don't think a C-130 can go that high.

The microraven has a reputation for being very sensitive to higher wingloading, with unexpected/sudden stalls slamming people on their back. That is just my memory of forum threads from years ago, a search would confirm more details.

Did anyone address what that metal pull-up slotted plate was doing in there? A person could conclude the video was intentionally set-up to fail, but the plate just fell out so obviously?

I think the Infinity by Velocity Sports Equipment is one of the best rigs at offering different size main and reserve combinations. The Racer if my memory is correct is also versatile in what can be ordered. Perhaps others can correct me if other mfgs also are as flexible in what can be offered. I have the good sense to have a 210 main at a WL of 1.12, and a 220 reserve. I've been well served by having low WL on the square reserve rides I've had. Anyway, I was wondering what you all thought of how much flexibility there is from mfgs in general to being able to combine a 100 main with a 200 reserve as just an example. I don't know if any mfg can do that. Perhaps it is really difficult as the number of combinations forces many different flap sizes and unintended interactions. Of course the demand is just not there. Until there is a demand for it, a 1.7 reserve WL on a swooping rig will be considered normal.

I believe the point was being made about main pilot chutes/deployment system, not main canopies. I don’t think stowless dbags are so common as to be considered where gear has converged.

I think that using non-zero porosity fabric on the lower skin does not result in lower performance. When a wing is flying at high angles of attack (such as during a flared landing), it is very important that the airflow over the top of the wing stay "attached"/not separate from the surface of the wing. If air is leaking out through the top skin fabric too much, then I think it has the effect of separating the airflow. Conditions on the bottom skin of the wing are very different, with separation not being an issue, so leakage through non-ZP fabric on the bottom doesn't matter. If it was possible to actually suck air into the wing through/from the top skin, then you get the ability to produce good lift at even higher angles of attack, as the airflow stays attached when it otherwise would not. This has been done on some experimental airplanes, including a Boeing 757 testbed that had part of the wing drilled with very tiny holes and a vacuum applied to suck air into the wing. So, air leaking out through the fabric matters a lot for the top skin, but not for the bottom, as long as it is not so much that cell pressurization suffers. That's my theory on why non zp is being applied on bottom skins, and I think it makes sense. In my previous life I was a mechanical design engineer, even did such for the Boeing company.

My review is in the gear section.