maretus

too big pc can cause centercell stripping if you overdelay that PC. a 46´wont harm you on a 1-2 sec delay,but neither will a 42´off 300ft. Sure thing that overdelaying with too big PC is not recommended but neither is underdelaying with too small PC. Of course you can get away just fine with 42" PC on a 300 footer with 1-2 sec delay but my main question was kinda why choose a 42" instead of 46" if you are planning a delay that is inside 46" PC's recommendations ? Do you see any considerable pros in using the smaller PC ? This is starting to slide offtopic, feel free Tom to edit this or start new thread. http://www.ufufreefly.com

Just out of curiosity, if you are going for a jump with 300" to impact, why go with 42" PC when planning to delay max. 2 secs ? Especially I'm interested why you chose a 42" PC on a 1/2 sec delay ? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a 46" ? Since all major manufacturers recommend a 45-48" when delaying under 2 seconds and the way I feel it in PC's (as in probably everything in BASE) you should always err on the bigger size. I'm very interested in this 'cause I've done a ~300" A several times with delays of 1-2 secs and my choice has always been 46" (hand held). http://www.ufufreefly.com

Yep, I fly "S2" but it doesn't have the same wing size than S3. My "S2" has slightly narrower leg wing compared to S3 and the trailing edge of the leg wing goes straight from ankle to ankle, as in S3 it is slightly curved. Arm wings are pretty much similiar (in size) than in S3 but as Vesa said, they probably have older wing profile. http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/masaari/photo3.jpg Picture of me flying my S2 over Everöd, Sverige. (Pic by Vesa "Finflyer" Toropainen) http://www.ufufreefly.com

Don't be sorry, I asked your opinion and got it. As I said in my post, I'm far from being expert in basecanopies and definately far from being able to give a good review since I do have very limited excperience with other canopies (than my uvented troll). I asked for your opinion conserning the troll because I wanted know what kind of behavior I should look and see wheter it exists in my troll and propably what things i should consider and pay special attention when looking other peoples jumping. http://www.ufufreefly.com

This is starting to slip and slide from the original topic so feel free Tom to split this to another thread if you want to. I think we've discussed the openings of the unvented Troll before in some other thread but could you please elaborate your view a bit further ? How are they poor ? Do they open off heading or is pressurization poor or what is wrong with the openings from your point of view ? I jump a unvented Troll and have 40 jumps on it so far and I'm very happy with the openings. I've taken my unvented troll from full terminals to low short delays and I'm very happy with it. Of course since I'm a newbie to this sport and don't have much experience with other canopies, it just could be that I don't know of anything better. http://www.ufufreefly.com

Dunno but it is in Europe and as far as I know it is a privately owned tunnel As far as I know (based on what I've been talking about with Jari and Jussi) he doing the testing in Helsinki University of Technology's Aerodynamical Departments laboratory. They have a wind tunnel there and the lab is located in Espoo Finland, just couple of kilometers outside of Helsinki. http://www.aero.hut.fi/ http://www.ufufreefly.com

Oh man awesome, simply awesome, footage ! You guys are really making this sport look just as good as it feels ! http://www.ufufreefly.com

Any chance you could put it on web as XviD or any other suitable format ? http://www.ufufreefly.com

I'd agree with comments previously posted in this thread, I've never even thought about opening the flap of my Gargoyle since it says in the owners manual that do not open it, even when doing low FF's. The flap is designed that way that it doesn't restrict the opening sequence. Lowest I've done (FF) with my gargoyle is 80m (~240ft) and several times under 300ft, all flap closed and no problems what so ever. http://www.ufufreefly.com

Sure thing I'd like to have bottom skin inlets if I was going ff from those heights but just out of curiosity, does Mojo have bottom skin inlets as an option or were those jumps done with unvented Mojo ? http://www.ufufreefly.com

To begin with, I must say a very good post there Hans on a very intersting issue indeed ! I've been thinking about tracking and aerodynamics of it and the more I think about it the more fascinating it is, basically so simple thing and still so multidimensional issue. That is absolutely true that we must try to maximize this ratio but if you widen your body position (and present more surface to airstream) you simultaneously present more surface to relative wind, thus creating more drag ? Think about the cross section of the "wing" you are creating when you are tracking, more "closed" your position is the smaller the cross section of the wing is and the smaller the drag is it creates while moving throurgh the airstream. So with the wider position you should be able to create more lift to overcome the additional drag it creates. This all comes down to maximizing the ratio between lift and drag but in my books widening the position means more drag so if going for wider position I should get huge amounts of lift out of it to get better performance from it than narrower position. Could you post pictures about your setup ? I'd be more than interested to see them. That is very important point indeed, as we advance in tracking and get better and better performance in tracking we move closer to wingsuit flight. I feel that angle of attck pays a crucial role in winged flight, it is way too easy to fly your suit very near the stall point (or actually stall your suit) and get the feeling of an amazing lift. Way too many wingsuit fliers fly their suits colse to the stall point and get relatively good freefall times 'cause that position with modern suits is quite floaty. But what they simultaneously are doing is killing the forward speed. If they would only push little harder and fly with more agrressive angle of attack they would get amazing forward speed and create the lift through speed, not through additional drag. I think that the same applies for modern tracking and is easyly overlooked when thinking about improving ones tracking skills. http://www.ufufreefly.com

Looks like he/she has way too small PC (or too short delay for that sized PC) resulting in a serious PC -hesitation and / or PC in tow. Secondly there is horrible snivel and oscillation of PC, both together resulting in an unpreferable opening sequence in base-enviroment and also some offheading. Thirdly he/she has modified skydiving gear with d-bag and packed slider up which in my books is not preferable configuration for any BASE-jump but at least not for 0-1 sec delays. http://www.ufufreefly.com

That was a show jump made over Helsinki, the capital of Finland, during the Red Bull Swoop competition held on local beach. Still, the DZ Malmi wher Parachuting club of Finland operates is located some 7 km's from downtown Helsinki so we get pretty nice visuals regularly.

Don't know about sweet spot but last weekend I demoed a friends KA89 with wl of 2:1 and I was very impressed. Of course I only made one jump with it so I really can't give much of a review but overall it felt very good indeed, fast as hell and I was able to pull quite a decent swoop out of it. And very good point there by lew, it really is a fast motherf*cker with those wingloadings so be careful, I regularly jump FX88 and felt that Katana had pretty good dive ...

Glad that you liked it !

Hello all ! Freeflying team UFU from Finland just released the trailer of our upcoming DVD, Fly Free vol 2. Movie will feature good vibes, good feelings and free flights from Team UFU's season 2004. You can view the trailer from : http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/masaari/ufutrailer.wmv Hope you like it ! http://www.ufufreefly.com

In my opinion, a bridge is a better first jump object. It may also be important to consider the prior skills of the student. A student who has tons of skydiving experience (unfortunately these are rarer every day, it seems) may have more success with a terminal object (where their terminal air skills will have time to kick in and save them). A student with limited skydiving experience (say, less than 500 jumps) is almost always going to be safer off a bridge. I totally agree that a bridge is way better object for ones first basejump, I never ment to say that for example that popular big wall in Norway would be better than a bridge with good LZ. I wrote about that big wall: "relatively experienced and current skydiver is quite doable place to make first basejump." So I totally agree with Tom on that matter. http://www.ufufreefly.com

How about that popular big wall in southwestern Norway where they organise training and FJC's ? I made my first BASEjump there and felt pretty good with it. From my personal experience I would say that 3000 foot, well overhung cliff to a person who is relatively experienced and current skydiver (I know, BASE is different than skydiving but still, especially on that cliff, I feel that skydiving experience does count) is quite doable place to make first basejump. This summer when we were jumping that cliff we had very interesting discussions indeed with other jumpers about suitability of that cliff for FJC's. It has pro's and con's, I agree, but I still feel that that cliff is way better than a guyed A for example for ones first BASE. There is a particular instructor from down under holding FJC's on that popular big wall in Norway and I definately feel that he has a tons of business on teaching everything about base to me. But hey, that's just me. http://www.ufufreefly.com

And where are the pictures ???? http://www.ufufreefly.com

That's one vote more for Douggs from me too, he's definately on of the coolest guys I've met in this sport. Such a cool guy, full of energy to always explain things to those in need of advice and a rock solid jumper ! An inspirational BASEjumper indeed. Thanks for everything so far Douggs, we'll hopefully meet again next summer in that popular big wall in Norway. :) http://www.ufufreefly.com

Could kind fellow send it to me also ? [email protected] Got it, thanks ! :) http://www.ufufreefly.com

Could kind fellow send it to me also ? [email protected] http://www.ufufreefly.com

Whazzat? The wsExtreme is the base container/harness system specificially designed to wsbase by morpheus technologies. http://www.baserigs.com/wsxtreme.html http://www.ufufreefly.com

Vesa pretty much summed it up but I'd like to add my thoughts on this subject. From my point of view 50 BASE jumps doesn't tell very much about ones abilities to make successfull ws BASE jumps, neither does 200-300 jumps. Which one do you consider better equipped to make a ws BASE jump, one jumper with 200 slider downs or jumper with 50 terminal jumps for example ? From my point of view, it's not the number of jumps you have, it's the quality of jumps you've made and the skills you've learnt during those jumps. Also taking up ws BASE (or any other "special" field of BASE) requires lots of background work, training and finding information, making the skydives, preparing yourself for the discipline of your choice. The way I see it it's all about getting ready, building up the necessary skills and feeling confident with your stuff. And that requires much more than just a certain amount of jumps. Just my thoughts... Edited to add: Great document though, very good points and that will be a must to read to anyone who is considering taking up wingsuit BASEjumping. http://www.ufufreefly.com

That's an interesting opinion, I've always thought that a high terminal wall (like the popular big wall in southwestern Norway for example) would be an optimal place to make your first flights. There are to my limited knowledge towers with something like 550m-600m (2000ft) of height but that's about it, popular big wall in Norway for example from exit 6 (which is very nicely overhung) has something like 800m of altitude. When doing my first wingsuit base I really didn't feel like smoking it very low so I depolyed somewhere around ~250m. Now having done that from a tower with exit altitude of 550 meters it would have given me only 300 meters of altitude to sort out my flying (compared to that big wall where i had around 500m to play with). I really feel that that extra altitude played a important role of getting relaxed with my flying, getting plenty of flight time and getting ready to deployment. Another thing with towers is that you have guy wires around (I assume that terminal towers are all wired) so you have to be rock solid with your exitheading and the heading of your first ten seconds or so in flight. Your point about the tailwind and the fact that it pushes you away from the object is absolutely correct but if person in question has even some experience flying wingsuits out of an airplane he really should be able to get plenty of object separation from terminal wall (so the tailwind really isn't an issue anymore). I honestly believe (or what I was thinking with my first flight) that object separation (or the lack of it) is not the main issue when considering wsbase, but getting my exit in order and getting that suit flying. When getting a decent exit and getting that suit flying if one can't get enough separation (to deal with linetwists for example) I really think he shouldn't be BASEing that suit but learning to fly it out of an airplane. If one fucks up the exit, one is in deep shit regardless of the object. Some objects give you more margin of error but I feel that overhung cliffs (like that wall in Norway) are pretty good in that sense too. (At least when compared to terminal towers). Elevator of course would be really nice and I believe that you can get your exits worked out really nicely when not having to hike for 2 hours for another jump. But hey, you just can't have everything... :) Just my (unexperienced) thoughts... http://www.ufufreefly.com