Pendragon

QuoteI have found the XF2 109 recovery arc short and IMO there is no need for rears at all. (WL 1.8ishQuote Not my experience at all with the same canopy at that wingloading. I use rears all the time with my Crossfire2 109, and with good results. Rears won't help you much if you're not going fast enough (so sub 270 degree turns aren't going to give you the benefit on rears), or if you have poor technique (don't time it right, provide enough input etc). The idea is to force the canopy to recover faster once the pilot has begun to swing back under the canopy, which is accomplished by using the rears to raise the angle of attack; consequently the ideal initiation height is very slightly lower than if rears aren't being used. However, using rears is not a method to bail from a low turn. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

At 1.35, you're quite lightly loaded on a canopy like that! My Xfire2 109 opens fast enough... but I'm loading it at 1.8+... Personally for a wingsuit, and at that wingloading more generally, I'd go for a soft-opening semi-elliptical such as a Safire2 instead. Far less hassle. There are better options for sub-1.6 wingloading; the Xfire2 really doesn't come into its own until 1.8-2.0 (after which the performance reduces again)... and then some would argue that they're not suitable for wingsuiting at that loading anyway. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I would only add that the reason you have had some hard landings is because you have been coming in on half-brakes, thereby reducing the flare power of the canopy as you don't have the speed to convert into lift. Do what Dave suggested to fix that. The Spectre is a 7-cell canopy; the other canopies you have flown are 9-cell. 7-cells are less efficient at generating lift and their glide ratios are less, and thereby have a steeper approach angle. However, 7-cells generally have better opening and slow flight characteristics. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I've thought about this a lot; I think it depends on how much double front input you put in. If a lot, you begin to tuck the nose, which will lead to depressurisation - and so it will be more susceptible to turbulence. Anything that decreases your angle of attack and reduces the pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces on the canopy will make it less susceptible to turbulence. So, flying toggles up better than half-brakes etc. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I'd second that. I use a Safire2 129 @ 1.6 for wingsuit flights and it is very well behaved. Swoops good too for me, and is resposive on the rears coming out of a 270 turn. It's also fun to out "swoop" some other jumpers using higher-loaded fully elliptical canopies. But like any canopy, you can kill yourself on it. (I also jump a Crossfire2 and Velocity) -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Hopefully I'll see you at Nethers! With any luck, the weather will hold out... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I agree. It's perfectly manageable, providing it's done right. I have, from time to time, used the BASE pouch in a skydiving environment; I happen to have a freefly pad on the rig I used (it's an Icon) which has a flap I can secure with the elastic. I would always check that my PC was secure before exiting (or opening the door on a Porter), and I wouldn't do any acro or multi-ways using this set up. The system can be perfectly fine, providing the restrictions around its use are known to the jumper and appropriate precautions taken: if not, it should not be used! -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I agree, but also many folks begin their flares slightly too late. Your canopy should have killed just about all forward speed with your feet just a few inches off the ground. Then when you put your feet down, you may only take a step. With regard to two stage flares (not directed at the poster I'm replying to) - I'm not a skydiving instructor (although I fly hang and paragliders too), but I think this is a load of baloney the way it's often explained. If you flare in two stages; the first is surely just to take the slack out of the brake lines then the next input is the actual flare itself. Coming in on half-brakes for your final flare only serves to reduce the flare power you have available - and it is more dangerous to fly slower in turbulent conditions. If someone has a decent explanation otherwise, I'm all ears... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

It's simple. You still need the jump #s. You may have got good body-flying skills and the ability to recover from instability, but you won't have the in-air awareness (tracking relative to others, general navigational skills etc) that comes from practising in the sky. That said, given your tunnel time, going straight to a bigger suit may be less of an issue than for others... although you should still probably use a smaller suit for your first flight. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Howdy Ted!

What most people don't realise when you gently pull on your right control toggle is that, initially, you turn left slightly as more lift is generated on the right side. Further control input subsequently slows that side down, and the canopy yaws and banks to the right. Right front riser doesn't really accelerate the wing on that side as much as deform it; such a deformation actually creates less lift on that side as it reduces the efficiency of the wing, and also induces bank. Hence you turn right. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I thought it was because the accuracy canopy was large and low aspect ratio that allowed you to sink it in. Lower aspect 7-cells have a slower speed stall characteristic than conventional 9-cells, making them ideal for this. In answer to the flaring from 1/4 brakes: it's not quite what it seems. It's actually flaring from a toggle position in which the slack in the brake lines has been taken out, but no input has been made - so you can flare faster when you need to. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Giggidy. Gigg-i-dy. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

1. Since when did "R" need an excuse for a wingsuit BASE jump? 2. Don't believe you! (unless you're speaking in relative terms...) -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Actually, it's good to see some Europeans. Brian Vacher as well! -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Brilliant! -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Depends on how current / good you are as a canopy pilot. Safire2 129 wouldn't be unreaasonable - and makes a good wingsuit canopy. Less aggressive than the Sabre2 at intermediate wing loadings but still swoops pretty well - and has better openings. ...but as the others have already pointed out, do you need to downsize? -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Amen to that one... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Not what I said. On any rotation up to a 180, your manouvre takes your landing more into your field of view. Anything over a 180 (eg, a 270) and your landing point moves further our of your field of vision (as you turn away). The perceived advantage (from a collision point of view) is that in a 180, you can see early enough into the turn to bail and land crosswind (or whatever) if you've made a mistake and the airspace you would be entering is otherwise occupied. This isn't so easy for a 270/540. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

The thought process is that, by restricting turns over 180 degrees, it is not possible to manouvre through a blind spot; ie. on a 180 approach or less, you never turn your back on where you are ultimately going. I don't believe that Z-Hills needs to restrict turns >180 degrees like this in a blanket fashion: it's just a gesture to appease certain people. Their PLA is big enough and could easily accommodate segregated landing areas. It's just that the swoop pond is already close to the packing area, and I'm sure there are too many old farts that don't swoop that wouldn't stand for being told they now have to land 2 mins walk away for a straight-in approach... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Received this funny from a friend: If you had purchased £1,000 of Northern Rock shares one year ago it would now be worth £4.95 With HBOS, earlier this week your £1,000 would have been worth £16.50 £1,000 invested in XL Leisure would now be worth less than £5 (I dread to think about AIG, Lehmans etc) ...but if you bought £1,000 worth of Tennants Lager one year ago, drank it all, then took the empty cans to an aluminium re-cycling plant, you would get £214! So based on the above statistics the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and re-cycle... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

-- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

I know what you're thinking. For big flocks, neither too fast nor too slow is ideal as you lose range. I've been in flocks where they were moving so slowly that I was either sinking out or on a level zooming into the sunset. Some of the newer big suits are actually more stable than their "lower performance" predecessors, although I agree that there are many "vanity" wingsuit flyers out there... -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

Interesting point here though. I wasn't there (obviously) but I can see how someone could be rather emotional about their hp landing getting stiffed on a hop n pop. I think there are many people doing straight-in approaches out there that just don't get it. Somone wants to do hp landings. They take themselves on a hop n pop to get away from everyone else. That IS the skydive for that person. What if the other person couldn't do their freefly dive because someone interefered with that? The guy who gets cut up on his hp landing from a hop n pop loses his skydive; the ticket, the time and the pack job. That's not to say I believe that screaming at someone is a good idea. However, there should be some give and take in this game - and I don't always see it either. -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13

(posting after this part of the thread had been moved from elsewhere) I think that would have annoyed me too. If you're making hop n pops at 4.5k ft (let's say), there isn't really any excuse for not landing in the same order in which you left the aircraft. However, there could have been other things at play here (there usually is) -- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13