crazydiver

Sarcasm my friend. Sarcasm. I've got too much time on my hands plus i'm kind of a jerk. Cheers, Travis

PD doesn't make a 90 sq. ft. reserve. And unless you have a custom made stiletto, its probably a 97. Cheers, Travis

This is true, but not necesarily the case for all canopies. I agree that the extra energy gained from multiple rotations is minimal compared to the difficulties. However, not all wings fly their most efficient in a dive with a slow carving turn hard on the front risers. Some do better with harness input. Some even do better with quick snap from riser turns. Flying the wing smoothly is even more key. A wing may not necesarily build up the most energy from a long dive on front risers. Cheers, Travis

I agree with davelepka in that canopies with shorter recovery arcs are more dangerous to do multiple or complex rotations. I advise anyone who swoops a canopy with a short recovery arc to move to soemthing with more margin of error when coming out of their dive. However, I dont think its fair to say that because a wing is larger would make it less safe to do complex turns to final than a little pocket rocket. Cheers, Travis

Quote why would they do big turns then? Quote To increase their their velocity to create more lift during a swoop. I'm saying that many people prefer to fly their current wings harder to get better swoops, rather than downsizing if they want to do swoop landings. Not that a person has to do either. I just thought it was an odd statement to say that if a person has a lot of jumps and wants to increase thier rotations, they would downsize. I dont think that's necesarily true at all. Cheers, Travis

QuoteIf a guy with a ton of jumps wants to do big turns, they'll use a smaller, more divey canopy, and be done with their rotation with several hundered feet to spare. Quote I know some people in this sport and who regularly post on this website who would disagree with you saying that someone with lots of jumps who wants to do big turns would use a smaller canopy. This is definetly not always the case is a relatively dangerous way to approach it. It sounds to me like you're saying that if you want to do higher rotations on final, just go smaller with your wing. I think this is a bad plan. And there's a progression to be made. A mistake I see from a lot of high number jumpers is that they jump from their 170 down to something 135 or smaller. Jump numbers mean nothing when a person doesn't progress. Cheers, Travis

Velocity 90 and 96---2003 PD 106---1999 and one from 2003 Odyssey---2002 Javelin---1999 Cheers, Travis

In the exam for an A license with USPA one of the questions is how often primary (main) and/or secondary (reserve) parachutes must be packed. And the FAR's clearly state that it is every 120 days on a back type container. The FAR's generally come from Poynter's manual, which is a very conservative and someone dated source. AKA...in my opinion, they can go even longer than that and still be jumpable, but the regulations require every 120 days. You are right though about the ZP stickin to itself, but this is not something that will happen in a few short months. THis is very long term and would usually require being exposed to extreme environments..i.e. heat, chemicals. Cheers, Travis

No fucking kidding. I've been discharging my forearm to the door before grabbing the door to shut it for the last couple months. I love Colorado though. Cheers, Travis

Hey now, lets not forget Colorado State University. Thirsty Thursdays and close to lots of ski areas and forty minutes to a dropzone. Plus...i'm there! Cheers, Travis

I dont know exact forces that can be exerted upon risers during opening, but I do know that type 17 webbing (material used to make mini risers) has a tensile stregnth of 2500 pounds. Perhaps 1500 pound spectra would work better fingertrapped through itself and doubled since it has a higher breaking stregnth. Folks with more manufacturing experience could pipe in. I dont know if type 17 or type 8 webbing has a higher resistance to a sudden shock load where spectra may not? I think the biggest issue is going to be forming a joint/union where the line meets the webbing for the functional parts of the risers that is strong enough to withstand extreme opening forces. The question is if it can hold if the pressure of the canopy is distributed unevenly during opening on one or more of the risers. Cheers, Travis

I have about 1200 jumps mostly from a field elevation of more than 4,500 feet MSL. The last dropzone I was at we jumped from 13,500 almost every load...which was a grand luxury. The current dropzone i'm at jumps from 12.5 K...not too bad for a field elevation of over 5,000 feet. On almost every jump we are coming very close to the cieling of 18,000 feet MSL that jumpers are allowed to casually jump from. Oxygen is on the plane, but I rarely use it and when I do its simply because its there to take advantage of and i've never been in a situation where I really felt as thought i needed it...I realize a person's perception of their hypoxia is distorted. I agree with all of the folks that are saying there is no validity in complaining about altitude for 20 bucks. If someone is gonna give more altitude, they should charge more. For the folks who have the option of going higher than 13,000 ft., its simply to costly/time consuming to go higher. Out here we have no choice, but all of the DZO's i've worked with would...obviously...prefer to go to 13,000 starting from sea level. It does take a long time to climb the higher you get. It takes really good jumpships to get to altitude quickly. Currently, my dz has a king air that can get to 17.5K msl in about 13 minutes and an otter that can do it almost as fast....i think that's damn impressive for our elevation. I've landed in a density altitude of more than 11,000 ft on countless occasions during the summers here in Colorado. Anyway. To sum up, the reason DZ's dont go higher is simply cost/time efficiency. All of the past/present DZO's that are reading this can vouch. If a DZ has 150 tandems to do in a day, the extra few minutes per load going higher in altitude is creating a serious sum of wasted time at the end of the day. Fuel prices are now ridiculous high and I'm surprised that our jump tickets aren't more. I'm still happy. Cheers, Travis

They get slightly shorter because the location where the fold turns back into flat riser takes up some length. It does reduce the frontal surface area and this is the benefit. The shrinkage only occurs in a tiny amount...however...on a highly loaded canopy, having the fronts shrink 1/4 inch is going to drastically change the angle of attack of the canopy. Think about if you had the riser folded but not stitched and you pulled on opposite ends of the riser, it would lengthen slightly. Cheers, Travis

Do you freefly? You can't tell the difference between articulated and non-articulated on your belly and on the ground. I have one rig articulated and one not and I have no real preference of the two. Webbing is made to flex just like the rings. Cheers, Travis

The reason that the canopy is more ground hungry usually is because of this... Think about how much length of the front riser is folded and then think about how much length of the rears are folded. The fronts have more length to be folded. As with any sewing, the more stitches, the more shrinkage. If the fronts shrink more than the rears, you've got a more ground hungry canopy. On the rears, you've got the hard housings that cant be folded as well as the spaces where the toggles are stowed, where as on the fronts you only have to avoid the dive loops. I've seen folks play with this in varying how much is stitched. An acquantence of mine has them stitched so that the canopy is actually flatter gliding. Cheers, Travis

I know what type II nylon line is. But saying nylon line is like saying my canopy is made of nylon. Of course it is. but what kind? Cheers, Travis

Why would people even think of rolling the nose on a spectre? There's no reason to. The spectre already has slow enough openings and rolling the nose of the canopy seems to have went out as technology improved. On most modern canopies, you can just let the nose lay...which is the way it should be anyway rather than having the opening forces due to the packjob. Rigging errors happen...and packing a main gives lots of people lots of chances to screw up. Cheers, Travis

Correct, spectra has more stretch than vectran/hma etc. But spectra goes out of trim almost as quickly as dacron, but dacron stretches permanently over time and spectra shrinks over time due to heat created by friction from the slider. Spectra IS nylon line. Dacron is polyester. Cheers, Travis

Better canopy design. Better opening trims. It's also easier to make a small canopy open slower/softer than a larger canopy. Cheers, Travis

Go with Cordura. It packs up much nicer (doesn't show reserve wrinkles and what not). Parapack is comfy, but cordura is more durable too. Cheers, Travis

These are all great ideas! Cheers, Travis

Go on, tell us why it is bullshit. You stated that the winds were doing very little below three grand. If thats the case, then a smaller canopy WOULD be more difficult to put spot on a target when having to land in the city or something. As an extremem case, for an example, it would be like saying a Velocity 103 is easier to land on a small target than a 230. Which is complete bullshit. The forward speed in low or no wind conditions of a smaller parachute makes it much more difficult to shoot accuracy. PRO ratings have minimum canopy size requirements for this reason. You had a valid question to start out and everyone seemed to provide relavent and tactful feedback, but you were on the defensive about each reply. I had a pretty agressive canopy progression and managed to survive it, although I was out for a few weeks one time due to a low turn that bit me, HARD. Experience IS relavent. It was relavent for him to say that he had 150 hours per year under a paraglider. It was relavent for riggermick to state his time in the sport and waht he has seen. I've only been jumping for 4 years and have known a person per year who died. All of them had good canopies above their heads. Cheers, Travis

To start, the drogue release on the cutaway handle is a bad idea. Good in theory, but what if the cable from that drogue release was crushed with a packing weight? You would have a no way to cutaway since they are connected systems. Same reason I think the eclipse is wrong in having the drogue release on the cutaway handle. I have seen it happen where that drogue release housing was crushed with a packing weight and prevented a cutaway...luckily it was discovered on the ground. That's death on a stick. Not to mention the complex two pin system used on their reserves and the packing methods. Lots of "band aid" fixes involving new flaps or tuck tabs. And the way they look when packed correctly, they still look bad. Stuff hanging out. Spandex flaps in the main tray that are just another part to replace more often than one made of cordura. I will jump a strong and get endorsed if need be, but in my opinion, their shortcomings are not outweighed by thier low cost. Now I do know some people who have used strongs at their dropzones because of the service/lease program they had. I’m not sure if Strong still does it. It was like lease the rig and all maintenance and everything is done by the factory for free. So strong had a great idea there. Cheers, Travis

Not sure if you have ever jumped as a tandem instructor or even seen Strong tandem rigs, but they are substandard in their design. I'm a tandem instructor, but luckily have so far had no reason to get a strong endorsement. However, i'm a rigger as well and can simply look at and inspect the hazards on the rig. I dont know about the comfort of them though. Aaron's not cranky, he's right. I dont have near as many jumps as Aaron. I've only got about 300 tandems..which is nothing now days. Cheers, Travis

From the looks of your loading on your profile, the 111 would be at a good startout wing loading for hte velocity. I've only got about 200 jumps or so on velocities and I'm loading right at 2 pounds per square foot. Cheers, Travis