likearock

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/05/08/veteran.parachuters.ap/index.html Elderly WWII vets denied parachute into Normandy Saturday, May 8, 2004 Posted: 6:57 PM EDT (2257 GMT) CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- A group of World War II veterans won't get to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Allied invasion of France next month the way they wanted -- the Army decided they're too old to safely parachute into Normandy. "I am depressed. I was really looking forward to it," said Howard Greenberg, 79. "My reason for wanting to do it was to honor two Jewish friends of mine who were killed in World War II." "I resent being told I'm not physically fit. I only weigh 11 pounds more than I did the day I was discharged," he said. Greenberg, a retired optometrist in suburban Bay Village, served with the 11th Airborne in the Pacific during the war and jumped into Normandy in 1994 on the 50th anniversary of D-Day. That time, President Clinton gave the ultimate approval that allowed 38 veterans to jump near Ste.-Mere-Eglise, the D-Day objective of the 82nd Airborne Division. Some of them landed on a herd of French cows. Bob McCaffery, co-chairman of the veteran parachutists' group, said he was notified of the Army's decision on Thursday. "The Army realized that these guys have trained and they are the exception among average 80-year-olds," said McCaffery, of Las Vegas, Nev. "But they said the risk of an injury happening at a ceremony of this magnitude was just too great." McCaffery had hoped President Bush would intercede this time, in part because the first President Bush parachuted when he was 75. Greenberg said he was aware of the danger. In 1995, he was one of six WWII paratroopers who went to Russia for an airborne tribute. His jump was canceled after the man who jumped before him was killed when his parachute failed to open. In 2000, while performing a tribute near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, another member of Greenberg's group was killed when his parachute did not open properly. "My wife was not crazy about me jumping again," Greenberg said.

It's really expensive to set up the initial molds and production. If they only made 1000 dolls, the average cost is going to be high. OTOH, if it turns out that millions are sold, then the price would drop considerably. How many of these things do you expect they might sell? -Josh I doubt that new molds are all that expensive. Check out how many different models they have available here. In addition, you could have a new one custom designed for considerably less than $13,000. As to the other infrastructure costs, I'm sure they can be amortized over proceeds from all the other dolls, which have been selling for some time. Finally, the fact that they advertise volume discounts and wholesale pricing kind of belies the thin margins they claim they're operating under. Wayne

Well if that's the case, it's remarkable that anything can be sold at a price under $13. Or do you believe there's something special about bobble-head dolls that requires higher infrastructure costs? Wayne

One thing in that article did catch my eye: Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things? Sounds like a scam to me. Wayne I'm assuming you've never run a business. I used to manage a company that produced a product that we charged $25 for. It was basically a report of public records. We got the information for free from the courthouse. So we made $25 profit I guess? More like $3. Not sure what your point is. Because you only made a $3 profit on your product, that means that the Bosley's can't be making more than that on a bunch of cheap ceramic chachkas? Wayne

I wonder how far you can go though when the profit motive is involved. Suppose I owned a liquor company and found a George Bush lookalike to pose for a billboard while holding onto a glass of single malt. What do you think the courts would say then? Wayne

Also, by saying that they're only taking $1.50 and giving $5.00 to charity, the implication is that they're primarily a charity. But I'm sure they're pocketing more than they're giving away. The issue with Schwartzenegger I would think would have to do with not being compensated by a company that's profiting off of his celebrity. Not being a lawyer, I can't say how legitimate is his claim. Wayne

One thing in that article did catch my eye: Does anyone really think it costs $13.45 each to manufacture and distribute those things? Sounds like a scam to me. Wayne

So much depends on the angle attack of the canopies. Me on a Prodigy 150 WAY WAY outsinks me on a Lightning 113. A Jedei 120 would outsink my Lightning in full flight, while I suspect a Stilletto or a Cobalt 120 would noticably outfloat me. So much depends on the trim of the canopy. I know I've been on sunset 8-ways where I flew my Diablo 88 back on rear risers and made it back while people on 9-cell ellipticals didn't. A LOT depends on trim. The Prodigy 150 would outsink even my Cobalt 75 - they drop like rocks. But I've got a considerably higher wing-loading on my Cobalt. Obviously the Cobalt turns faster and flies faster, but its floatier. Prodigys are definitely large boats, but they're large boats with a hole in the bottom. That's because their angle of attack is so steep. In general Brian Germain's canopies will sink considerably faster at full flight than the equivalent PD canopy. Brian normally trims his steeper than PD. Lightnings have such a variety of line length and trim its hard to make a generalization. Put demo trim on a Lightnings and it'll land as well as a Spectre. I know as a newbie CRW dog it was a whole lot easier for me to fly and land the Lightning 113 than it was a Prodigy 150 or 175. Its not all about wing-loading. W It's definitely not all about wing-loading when you're talking about different canopy types. What I was talking about was situations where the canopies were basically the same. A 135 Spectre will dive faster than a 150 with a toggle buried, that 's a fact of life. The 7-cell vs. 9-cell question is interesting though. Under the same wingloading will a Xaos-21 dive faster than a Xaos-27 due to its lower aspect ration? My guess is yes. Consider that the two important stages of canopy swooping are building up speed during descent and retaining that speed on plane out. Now, it's got to be the case that a 27 will retain its speed better than a 21 on plane-out, because of its superior glide angle. Will it also dive faster too? If that were the case, it would be so superior why wouldn't canopy manufacturers exclusively make 27s? Why wouldn't PD turn a Velocity into a 27? I'd be very curious to hear if anyone has any actual experience with this. Wayne

Question here.....Don't you think a 9 cell with 180 degree toggle input at 50 ft makes it a vertical descent (dive) as well? Sure. But the degree of verticality (and corresponding speed of descent) will vary according to wingloading and aspect ratio of the canopy. Clearly, higher wingloaded canopies will get more vertical than lower wingloads all else being the same. What I'm less sure about but I believe is that lower aspect ratio (7-cell) canopies will dive more steeply than higher aspect ratio (9-cell) canopies when they have the same fabric area (and are not elliptical). This is just a function of the overall flatter glide angle of the 9-cell. But like I said before, I'm no expert here and if anyone else can add to or correct this, please do. Wayne

That is true when you're discussing the same canopy. Last weekend I did CRW with a newbie who was on a 1-1 loaded Sabre. Most people would consider that very reasonable for someone with low jumps. His canopy was very noticably faster than my Lightning 113 loaded at 1.375. Admittedly, it was a 9 cell, not a 7-cell, but is it any safer for him to do a low turn than it would be for me? I'm no expert on the physics of canopy flight but my understanding is that a 9-cell will go faster horizontally than a comparable 7-cell, but the 7-cell will descend faster. Since it's generally agreed that excessive vertical speed is more dangerous than horizontal, I'd say there's a good chance it would be more dangerous for you to do a low turn than for him (not that it's a good idea in any case). Of course, there are other factors involved such as difference in your weights, canopy trim, etc. But overall a higher loaded canopy, especially a 7-cell will descend faster than lighter loaded one. And if we're talking about circumstances that could cause a canopy to dive so radically it hits the ground before the passenger, that's going to be a lot more likely under 1.3 WL than 1:1. And I say that as someone who flies a 7-cell loaded at 1.3. Wayne

That may be true but it's also true that a higher wingloading under the same canopy will result in a faster horizontal descent. Faster horizontal descent generally means you're going to get hurt worse if things go bad. That's true whether the higher wingloading is the result of adding weights or not. Wayne

But that's just not true, Bubbles. A higher loaded canopy will drop faster than a more lightly loaded one under full toggle input. You will collide with the earth at a greater speed. That's just the way it is and people should understand that factor when they decide to downsize. Anyway, I'm really glad you came out of this and are on the road back. Heal well. Wayne