The111

Which btw is a Thin Lizzy song. Though my favorite cover they did is the Misfits' Die Die My Darling. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Your canopy has no idea of wind in a constant wind. But as Kallend pointed out, when there is wind shear the picture is different. According to Monique, the wind which James was in "disappeared" immediately when he dropped below the treeline. I really don't want to turn this into another argument and get this thread locked like the one in the other forum, but please think about this. If you are flying into a strong headwind which is equivalent to your airspeed (20 mph for example's sake), your groundspeed is zero. You are apparently hovering over the ground descending straight down. If the wind disappears immediately (or close to it), you will now have a ground speed of zero AND an airspeed of zero. Your canopy will deflate, you will begin falling straight down faster, and the tension in the lines and the shape of the canopy will cause it to dive to inflate again, until you have regained an airspeed of 20 mph again. Here you answer your own question: If the canopy needs to increase speed, it is obviously going too slow. It will dive when it is going too slow, to build up speed again. To prove this put on deep brakes then let them up. It is going too slow so it will need to increase speed. It accomplishes this by diving. Not to imply that it dives for the purpose of building speed (it has no brain), it dives because of gravity, and builds speed because of aerodynamics. Or, as HnS put it, since some people like to take the word of authorities when they're uncertain of the physics themselves... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I recently went to a new DZ which I won't name. I loved everything about it except for one thing. They made you take your rig to the rigger and get it inspected and "tagged" before you can jump it. This means they put a little paper/sticky band (like the bracelets you get at clubs/concerts/bars) around your main lift web (I think that's what it's called). Anyway, it's next to impossible to places those things perfectly straight (I'm sure you've worn them before and when you rip them off you feel arm hairs getting pulled out too), which means you get a small part of the band sticking to your rig. I've read a few posts on here about adhesive not being good for your rig, and I agree, I wouldn't want some tacky gooey junk building up there and attracting dirt and whatnot. It might seem like I'm over-reacting (obviously the mating surfaces between rig and band are VERY small since only a small part of adhesive band overlaps itself), but after shelling out $5k+ for a new rig I don't think it's unreasonable to want to treat it how *I* want. What would you do? I love this DZ , and honestly I don't think anyone on the plane or boarding area was ever actively checking for the bands, so I'd be tempted to just not do it next time, but would hate to miss a load because of this. I thought about mentioning it to the DZO, but I want to make sure you guys don't think I'm over-reacting first. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The Shawshank Redemption Magnolia Dark City Donnie Darko Requiem for a Dream Punch Drunk Love www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Ahhh, the camera step (outside). Was wondering where it was. Somehow I don't think it would be too easy to hang onto the side of a plane for 10 minutes wearing a wingsuit. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I've always left a note on my door instructing the UPS man exactly what to do - leave it with my neighbors, take it back to the station, etc. He's always followed my instructions. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yeh, I spent 10 minutes on the phone with Curt and ordered a $5000+ rig. He didn't really seem too enthusiastic and never wanted to offer one ounce of advice when there were options I was uncertain about. But the nice thing is this - 24 hours later I found a local dealer (TSO-D!) who offered better prices and was much more convenient. I called Curt back and he let me cancel my order... didn't seem too happy about it but didn't put up a fight. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I agree entirely, and I also think most people care much more about looks than they admit, and I wouldn't fault anyone for that. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

By my calculations he is (was) 27 this year... I'd imagine he hit puberty before that... did he just start taking Accutane now? Or he took it years ago and the side effect is happening now? Anyone have any reliable source referring to the Brandis/Accutane link? I also took this stuff in high school, was told of many possible side effects it could have, but all of them were physical. That said, it was a rough experience, but worth it... my skin became super sensitive to sunlight and my lips were like falling off in chunks every day despite the gallons of chapstick I put on. I'm grateful for it though. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Looks a lot like a Casio Exilim. VERY similar design and specs. I have the Exilim Z3, no complaints... they just started making a "Z4". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

As Canuck pointed out, it has something to do with the way Americans are bred to think, and the fact that so many of them are sheep and are easily shaped by the media, etc. I'm not perceptive enough to lay my finger on exactly what mindset makes so many people think killing someone is the solution to a problem (nor is it an easy thing to figure out - that is the point of the movie and Moore's many theories), but it is obviously something about our culture/society that causes people to think this way, if people in other cultures/societies don't think this way. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

2-3 million soldiers vs 2-3 billion civilians (mins 2-3 million) I have no idea what you are trying to say here, why it is addressed to me, and why you are quoting me as saying something I didn't. ??? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I thought Flieglend (sp?), the one who you were replying to, said that guns were designed to kill. I'm confused. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I agree, I did not come forward with that interpretation of the 2nd Amendmend. PhillyKev a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms did. (I hope I recal that correctly) Maybe he did, but he's not the one who started hammering home the "1 weapon per person" concept. You are. Actually, they can't. They're dead. To the dread of many, we have to think for ourselves. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I could not agree with you more. But we were talking about the US Army not 5 soldiers. I'm glad you agree with me. PhillyKev showed that the ratio of soldiers to civilians is 5 to 100,000. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I think 100,000 citizens armed with spoons could probably take 5 soldiers with an entire arsenal of guns at their disposal. I think they'd also lose a lot of lives in their spoon assault, and many would be scared to try. I think 100,000 citizens with guns would ANNIHILATE 5 armed soldiers, and be much more confident in doing so. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I thought I had, but I'll be happy to do it now. IMHO, if a citizen is allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, it follows that the citizen is not allowed to carry what the average footsoldier is not carrying. You've missed my point. If you want to focus on details and words (you seem to like the word "one"), how about a "scientific, conclusive conclusion" (something you've asked for) about exactly what an "average foot soldier" is. The above is sarcasm, obviously. All foot soldiers do not carry one weapon, and I do not truly know what number is "average". My point is this. I'm asking you to explain, rationally, why you keep focusing on "one weapon." What is the realistic difference between carrying one gun or two? You can only die once. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Do you know the ratio of American citizens to American military? I don't, but I'd guess it's pretty damn big. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Why on earth do you keep adding this "but nothing else" line? What does it have to do with anything? PhillyKev has asked you several times, and I haven't seen a reply yet, despite your complaints about someone else not replying as you desire. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Using *your* own argument... what is the purpose of your reserve parachute? Based on how many times you use it, and how often you *prepare* to use it... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Wow. Right on. As an American, I've always been confused by the unconditional patriotism of *most* Americans and their tendency to view situations subjectively rather than objectively. Maybe I should move to Canada. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Here is the post I made about my new V3 M-series (not micron). Apparently I do have that tape. I'm curious if that strip is present in their 3D coloring thing on their site or not... I'm at work and my browser is shitty so I can't view that coloring thing. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

All I have to say is this: the answer to this argument lies not in astrophysics or years of swooping experience. And it doesn't matter what expert you can pull out of what hat. You need to be able to explain your viewpoint on your own, for your sake at least. Take a basic physics course that covers fixed versus moving reference frames (relative motion), and if you can fully understand that then this issue will no longer be a debate. The one thing you keep focusing on is how the wind will "hit the top of your canopy", and you are implying that it will hit it harder if the wind is faster. That would be true, IF your parachute was simply materializing out of thin air and diving into the moving air mass without any groundspeed. But in a huge mass of moving air, your canopy is already moving WITH the air. Simple example: Case A - The air is moving 60mph (relative to the ground). You are flying downwind, and your canopy flies 10mph airspeed. So your groundspeed is 70mph. You do a 180 hook (for simplicity the hook will not speed you up, simply change your direction), and end up going INTO the wind, now your ground speed is 50mph (although you are unfortunately going backwards relative to the ground). Case B - The air is moving 10mph (relative to the ground). You are flying downwind, and your canopy flies 10mph airspeed. So your groundspeed is 20mph. You do a 180 hook (for simplicity the hook will not speed you up, simply change your direction), and end up going INTO the wind, now your ground speed is 0mph (it appears you are coming straight down relative to the ground). In Case A, your groundspeed went from 70mph to 50mph. While you were turning, it is true your top skin got exposed to a 60mph wind, but you were moving with the wind so it didn't matter. If you had been sitting still, in a dive position (which is impossible), 60mph of wind would sure as hell collapse your canopy, but you weren't sitting still, you were moving hella fast (rel to ground) with the wind. In Case B, your groundspeed went from 20mph to 0mph. While you were turning, your top skin got exposed to 10mph of wind. True that is much less than 60mph, but it had the same effect since in this case your groundspeed was also much smaller. If all else fails, remember that the earth is spinning and even when there's no "wind" (moving air relative to the ground), the air you are flying through is still moving. EDIT: I'm not the most experienced canopy pilot and I didn't even attempt to make my numbers accurately reflect the speeds of canopies relative to the ground or air. It's a simple example just like the one about the aquarium and the rock, which was VERY relevant. The rock feels no sideways force from the water because they are both moving together! You feel no sideways ("topskin") force from the wind because you are moving with it! The only way the rock would feel a force from the water (regardless of the shape of the rock or the density of the water) would be if it was somehow held still while the water was forced past it. Likewise, if the hand of God reached up from earth and held you still while 60mph wind passed you by, you'd feel it. But normally, there is no hand of God, and you are moving with the wind. You never know how fast you are moving until you see the ground, and regardless of what kind of dives you do, you are moving WITH the wind. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Eh, I don't really care if someone has 1500 jumps or not, I just really doubted that someone had 6000, which was why I made the post. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No. It's not. We're curious. Or to quote you: "I want to know..." We don't deserve to know, but we have a right to ask. www.WingsuitPhotos.com