richoH

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    64

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by richoH

  1. On 8/3/2020 at 4:08 AM, Binary93 said:

    image.png.ff85c2585b4c8438cf53c22292ea9a0c.png

    From the video: 

     

    Edit: Here's the "more detailed video" he references:

     

    Thankyou for following up! I'm now super curious how I arrived at this belief, from memory we laid some of the demo canopies from PD over each other, and on the ol' anecdata butt dyno a velo *definitely* doesn't look as oval as that diagram staring at it from below.

    I appreciate the correction though, cheers.

    • Like 2

  4. 14 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    I don't know about rage. But I would also be pissed if I bought a used canopy, reserve or main, and links were not included.

    I'm exaggerating but the process of getting all the line groups back together, straightened out and then trying to find a straight answer for which of the two continuous lines was meant to be on the inside of the link took longer than packing the rig up when I was done :(

  7. VSE also has two form factors for the Infinity, SN (short + narrow) which sits higher and standard which is longer and flatter. Freefliers tend to prefer the SN models, wingsuiters and really tall people gravitate toward the standard.

    With that said, I think every manufacturer now has some variation on this concept now.

  8. · Edited by richoH

    +1 what size.

    If you want a comparison, I have a 135 zp winx in a container that comfortably held a 120KA and it's REALLY TIGHT. It's not dangerous, but it is absolutely the tightest allowable fit in that container, and I have to pack really neat and not put myself on short calls because it's a bastard to close. I really wish I'd gotten the LPV version or maybe a 120 instead.

    edited to add: Sorry I can't remember how the katana fit in that container since it's been a while, but I don't remember it ever being a problem. I had a 129 crossfire in there briefly and I think I remember it being a similar pain in the ass to the winx.

  9. On 6/19/2019 at 2:36 PM, yobnoc said:

    I do consult with the elders of the sport often at my DZ.  I've observed it's a good way to get on everyone's shit list if you try new things or basically make any decision without running it by every Tom, Dick, and Jane with any experience.  I caught a lot of shit for buying my first rig brand new, but ultimately decided that the people who were giving me the hardest time had no idea how hard it was to find a full rig in my price range that fit me, because I'm a large-sized human.  Plus, I didn't really think it was appropriate to tell someone else how to spend their own money.  Ultimately, I got a rig that is custom fit for me and comfortable, and I got it for an incredibly low price (lower than anything I could find in the classifieds or on facebook). 

    When it comes to anything that might affect my safety, someone else's safety, or the reputation of the dropzone, however, I always consult with the experts.

     

    Again, thank you to all for the valuable input. 

    That's a healthy attitude for sure.

    What I read from your post is that you're trying to ask how to do the thing you've decided on is the solution, rather than trying to ask people how to solve your underlying problem. This is something I see really commonly in my line of work, and it's why it trips off my spidy sense.

    You're asking what you have to do in order to do big turns on your front risers, and I'm asking why you want to do that (I don't really care if you tell me, I just think you should make sure that you have a convincing explanation for yourself). If your goal is to swoop, you should just be thinking about how to get more power and consistency out of your turn, regardless of the rotation. If you're right at the edge of the pressure you can keep the risers down under, you're going to have massive consistency issues.

    This is why I'm telling you to get advice from people who've actually seen you fly. Good luck man, I hope you get it figured out.

  11. I think others have covered most of it here, but I just want to echo.. not being able to do a 270 on fronts is probably the worst imaginable reason to downsize, and to give you some idea, I probably can't do more than a 270 on any of my canopies (Mostly in the 60's and 70's sq ft). There's not really any reason to, even in the context of competitive swooping, and if that's a goal for you I don't think downsizing will get you any closer to it.

    Get someone who knows you and has seen you fly to help you make a decision.

  12. It can be a ton of things. If your risers have shrunk a few mm that can be a substantial trim change in the grand scheme of things.

    I had 2 velo 84's on the same lineset, one opened noticably better, the other swooped measurably farther. Keep on top of it and try to get to the bottom of the reason, but don't lose sleep over it.

  13. On 5/2/2019 at 5:31 AM, verticalflyer said:

    I got my rigger to split the BOC into 2 with a simple stitch line and add a bridle cover, I can now select either a top BOC pouch or bottom, as I also was concerned about loos BOC. works nicely now, cost all of $20 and about 30 mins work, images attached, several friends have now made the mod also.

     

    What's going on on the left hand side of your container??

  14. Sunpath really like F111 pilot chutes. Without getting into that debate (I am firmly in camp-zp-pilot chutes) you're probably going to have hella hesitations if you take super short delays with an F111 PC.

    You could screw around with your gear, but 2s is a really short delay for a hop n pop. I would just take an easy 5, and I bet your problem goes away.

    If you're just set on taking super short delays (This was me for a while, I had a katana with a Velo RDS and on it and the openings were.. snappy) try either a larger PC (sunpath will make you a 33", understand that this is a bad idea for terminal) or try a ZP one (personally I really like the VSE design, and did before I represented them).

  16. Westerly

    ***For me its almost solely dependent upon symmetry in the risers. If they're matched up I can have a barber pole at 1.8WL and it's as stable as can be, but if you're leaned one side when the twists set in and then the risers are stuck with an offset then you're fucked.



    I agree that it seems to be more a matter of riser symmetry and canopy planform than WL. I cutaway an otherwise standard semi-elliptical canopy loaded 1.05 to 1 because I opened with some bodytwists and it started to spiral down fast enough that my leg wing reinflated and I was spinning on my back. While a higher WL wouldn't have been great, I suspect the only thing that would have made it better (gear wise) would have been a different canopy more resistant to spiraling around.

    I ended up trying a P7 and found the openings to be great. Really soft and on-heading. However, to my surprise the planform is still elliptical enough that I can turn fairly sharply. The turns are actually more aggressive than the same-size Sabre 2 I had flow in the past. I am not sure this is a good thing though. As a wingsuit canopy I kind of expect the flight would be quite boring and sluggish (like the PD Horizon) in order to reduce the seriousness of it spiraling down.

    I suspect Aerodyne added some level of elliptical-ness to the planform to appease to those who wanted a canopy that will open well, but still retain some level of fun in flight. To my surprise, they dub the Pilot 7's 'planform factor' higher than the nine cell Pilot which kind of seems like they were going in the wrong direction with that one. I am curious if this canopy will spiral down and put you on your back if you open in twists.

    Do you have video of this cutaway? What canopy and size were you flying at 1.05?

    I find it really hard to believe that you got anything to spin and dive at 1.05.

    FWIW here's a shitload of linetwists flying straight at ~1.4ish I guess? on a sf2 149.

  17. DougH

    ***
    Why on earth would you ever buy a rig that you can't loan someone without giving them a briefing on how to do their EPs differently if they don't want to literally die.



    I don't like the double sided RSL. I think it is a hazard even with proper training. People don't respond properly under pressure.

    That being said, there is a saying "Borrowed gear kills".

    The Racer's double sided RSL isn't the only piece of gear out there that has gotten people in trouble when borrowing gear. Freefly puds with tuck tabs, pull outs, and a number of other things have bit people in the ass with borrowed gear.

    I see what you're getting at, although all the things you mentioned, you won't bounce if you pull the cutaway handle and then the reserve handle after you have issues with deployment, which is not true of the Racer's double sided RSL.

    I hadn't really thought about it before I wrote that post, but as someone who jumps borrowed gear a bit and lend people mine, there are idiosyncrasies about my gear that I need to give people a heads up about, but none I can think of that are likely to kill.

  18. I think I'm ok without the type of customer service that makes you come on a forum and yell at someone nearly killed by your product for being an idiot.

    Why on earth would you ever buy a rig that you can't loan someone without giving them a briefing on how to do their EPs differently if they don't want to literally die.

  20. Westerly

    I've always been concerned if I try to land on my rears and then flare with the toggles the last minute, letting up from the rears will cause the canopy to dive. Sort of like if you went into a half-flare, then completely let up and went into a full flare.

    So I guess the question is can you safely try to level out on your rears a few feet off the ground, release the rears and then flare with the toggles?



    Don't learn to fly parachutes from the internet.

  21. koppel

    ***

    Quote

    Australia 12 months (dont necessarily agree with it for OZ)



    Not for tandems - Australia is 12 months for Certificate Class B holders and above only.

    Students, Novices (Certificate Class A), Tandems and pilot rigs are 6 month repack cycles.


    well - as we are getting particular here....:P

    Its ‘up to’ 6 or 12 Months depending on your Certificate etc as stated.

    I find this an important point as it is at the discretion of the packer / rigger to choose.

    for example, if they have a client who is jumping onto the beach daily in a tropical sun then perhaps a shorter repack cycle is a sensible decision

    (b) Student, Novice, Tandem reserve and Pilot emergency parachute equipment as well as tandem passenger harness, may be certified as airworthy for a period of up to six months by the holder of at least a Packer A signing the parachute packing record as required by OR 12.5.1.

    (c) Certificate Class B holders and above reserve parachute equipment, may be certified as airworthy for a period of up to 12 months by the holder of at least a Packer A signing the parachute packing record as required by OR 12.5.1. In this case, the use of a checklist (APF Form P3 or Certifier’s modified version) is recommended.

    What happens if I loan an A licensed jumper my rig that I packed 7 months ago?

  22. I mean, don't rush or get your heart set on any given progression, because once you get to the pointy end all bets are off, a bit. But to give you an idea of what I did:

    VE96
    VE84
    VK79ps
    VK75ps

    then I spent a while flying whatever wings I could get my hands on, mostly various sizes of Petra 64-68, A few jumps on a HK71, a sleia 66, some smaller valkyries, at a ton of wingloadings while I figured out what I wanted.

    and then Scott managed to build my 67 HK in record time so I could take it to aussie nationals. Now they're trying to build my 64 in time for blacklist :)

  24. yuri_base

    I proved Wingsuit Equations in 2006, see OP for the link.

    Now, in modern civilized countries, there's this principle,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

    Quote

    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)



    So anyone who thinks that WSE and related math I derived is wrong, has a burden to rigorously, mathematically - not by just blah-blah-blah - prove that they are wrong.



    Seriously? Seems like you're making the extraordinary claims here.