raymod2

If he can get a better deal on the XF1 isn't that a reason? I was under the impression that there was little difference between the XF2 and the XF1 with the service bulletin mod. I've never jumped a XF2 but then (as far as I know) Derrick has never jumped a XF1. What I have jumped is a XF1 119 (200 jumps) and a Katana 120 (2 jumps) and I didn't notice much of a performance difference between the two.

I've been trying to answer my own question and I haven't been able to find a definitive answer. The IPC rules are clear and state that the way they do it in Todd's district is correct (non-scoring rounds in speed get 0 points). But the CPC rules at Jim Slaton's web site (http://www.canopypiloting.com/cpcrules.htm) don't mention the percentage scoring system at all and say that a non-scoring round in speed receives the maximum penalty which is 30 seconds. I think it's important that this discrepancy is clarified because I looked at the scores for our last two meets and the rankings would be different depending on the scoring method.

In our district we were scoring failures to complete the course (verticals, running out the side, canopy touching the ground too soon) as 30 seconds. If the top speed was 3 seconds that means you still get 10 points. Is that not the correct scoring method?

Didn't Hans Paulsen win the speed event (and had the fastest time at 2.76 seconds) at Longmont last week jumping a Velocity 111 at 2.25 lbs/sq.ft.? This suggests that heavier people are not necessarily at a disadvantage in this event. Although I don't know what the wind conditions were...

Two questions: How can you get a 0 in speed since 30 seconds is the worst time you can get? Can we see the raw scores?

Name Speed 1 Speed 2 Dist 1 Dist 2 Accy 1 Accy 2 ------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ Dan Raymond 2.44s 2.64s 241' 200' 56 74 Mike Wittenburg 3.50s 3.57s 367' 298' 69 0 Steve 3.84s 30.00s 192' 177' 69 69 Patrick 2.87s 2.57s 201' 230' Giedrius Kasiulynas 2.80s 30.00s 167' 193' 59 35 Kenny 3.90s 4.74s 113' 156' 76 0 Mike Macino 30.00s 30.00s 0' 30' 0 0 Name Speed 1 Speed 2 Dist 1 Dist 2 Accy 1 Accy 2 Total ------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Dan Raymond 100.00 97.35 65.67 67.11 56.00 74.00 460.13 Mike Wittenburg 69.70 71.99 100.00 100.00 69.00 0.00 410.69 Steve 63.54 8.56 52.31 59.40 69.00 69.00 321.81 Patrick 85.01 100.00 54.77 77.18 0.00 0.00 316.96 Giedrius Kasiulynas 87.14 8.56 45.50 64.77 59.00 35.00 299.97 Kenny 62.56 54.22 30.79 52.35 76.00 0.00 275.92 Mike Macino 8.00 8.56 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 26.56

If any of you guys want the video used for judging I have edited it, deinterlaced it, and compressed it. The filesize is 33MB and the running time is 5 minutes 19 seconds. ftp: 67.162.42.139 username: cpc password: cpc or ftp:\\cpc:[email protected]

Name Speed 1 Speed 2 Dist 1 Dist 2 Accy 1 Accy 2 ------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ Joel Cook 3.50s 3.67s 160' 181' 0 46 Dan Raymond 30.00s 30.00s 262' 0' 100 81 Giedrius Kasiulynas 30.00s 30.00s 95' 141' 35 69 Shane Cler 30.00s 30.00s 82' 122' 29 0 Derrick Krakau 9.54s 11.07s 0' 142' 0 0 Jason Stein 30.00s 30.00s 0' 0' 27 45 Bas 0' 0' Name Speed 1 Speed 2 Dist 1 Dist 2 Accy 1 Accy 2 Total ------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Joel Cook 100.00 100.00 61.07 100.00 0.00 46.00 407.07 Dan Raymond 11.67 12.23 100.00 0.00 100.00 81.00 304.90 Giedrius Kasiulynas 11.67 12.23 36.26 77.90 35.00 69.00 242.06 Shane Cler 11.67 12.23 31.30 67.40 29.00 0.00 151.60 Derrick Krakau 36.69 33.15 0.00 78.45 0.00 0.00 148.29 Jason Stein 11.67 12.23 0.00 0.00 27.00 45.00 95.90 Bas 11.67 12.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.90

Wow, these scores really show how consistency can win a meet. Adam Teeling was stealing the show until he got a 0 in the first round of zone accuracy. I'm curious, though, what happened in the first zone accuracy round? Connie was the only one to score in that round.

@Brian: Thank you for your comments. Conventional wisdom (and all papers I have read on the subject) indicate that the ratio of canopy drag to pilot drag (cd/pd) is how tail deflection alters angle of attack. I am challenging conventional wisdom and I submit that it is actually the ratio of canopy lift to canopy drag (l/d) that causes the change in angle of attack. Consider the first hypothesis (cd/pd). This ratio can be changed by altering either the numerator or the denominator. If you cut pilot drag in half you should get the same result as doubling canopy drag. Experience shows that this is not the case. Large changes in pilot drag have a negligible effect on angle of attack while small changes in canopy drag produce large changes in angle of attack. Also consider the fact that the center of mass for the canopy/pilot system is somewhere inside the pilot's body. Therefore changing pilot drag will produce no moments (which require a force acting perpendicular to the radius of the center of mass). With no moments acting on the system it will not rotate. You could eliminate pilot drag completely (and cd/pd would approach infinity) and there would be little or no change in angle of attack. Now consider my analysis (l/d). When the canopy/pilot system is in equilibrium the TAF is colinear with the center of mass. Tail deflection increases both lift and drag of the canopy but it increases drag more. Therefore l/d decreases. l/d determines the direction of the TAF vector. Since the TAF acts on the canopy and not on the center of mass, changing the direction of the TAF vector will cause it to no longer be colinear with the center of mass (producing an unbalanced moment). The canopy/pilot system will seek to eliminate that moment by rotating until the center of mass is back in line with the TAF. This, I propose, is the dominant principle by which tail deflection alters angle of attack.

Why should there be an incentive to lure the pros to compete in a CPC meet? Don't get me wrong, I welcome the opportunity to compete with the pros and I don't deny the educational value. But there are people who are reluctant to compete at all because they feel that they are donating their entry fees as cash prizes for more experienced pilots. With pros coming along and walking away with their money that's just another nail in the coffin. Of course my perspective is probably different in the Illinois region where we had low turnout last year. There are plenty of pilots in the area with the skills to start competing and I hate to give them reasons not to give it a try. P.S. I agree with you about the guest fees, Ian. I don't think guests should have to pay at all unless it is used to pay for judges or course materials.

My post wasn't a criticism of the handicap system or the CPC competitors in the southeast. It was directed at the policy of letting pros (guests) contend for prize money in a CPC meet. I think that only rookies and advanced competitors should be eligible for prize money. Of course, if guests aren't eligible for prize money then I don't think they should have to contribute to the pot either.

@davelepka: Your logic is all wrong. Just because we didn't know something 11 years ago doesn't mean it is bullshit today. A year ago we didn't know that swooping at high altitudes increases swoop distances. Are you saying that is bullshit too? Three years ago the world record was 418 feet. Today it is 678 feet. Do you think nothing new has been learned about swooping in that time? Your anecdote about the guy with the 2.7 wing loading is just that: anecdotal. Was there a strong headwind? Higher wing loadings perform better in those conditions.

Was it the intention that guest competitors would take prize money away from CPC members? I'm a little surprised at that.

I chose my words carefully because I did not want to assert that one type of canopy is more dangerous than the other (short versus long natural recovery arc). What I did say was that a canopy with a short natural recovery arc generates a higher angle of attack on its own. Since all wings have a limited angle of attack before lift starts to decrease and/or a stall occurs the canopy with a shorter natural recovery arc is using up more of your margin for error before you even apply any input (toggles or rear risers). To put it another way, a Velocity has a larger range of recovery arcs to choose from than a Stiletto. This puts more control in the pilot's hands. That control can make landings safer for a skilled pilot but it can also make landings more dangerous for unskilled pilots.

I agree that the high angle of attack during dive recovery is the element that makes the difference between a "safe" approach and a "dangerous" approach. If for no other reason than the fact that you are using up your margin for error when you are already at a high angle of attack. You could use this argument to support the position that canopies with long recovery arcs are safer for swooping than canopies with short recovery arcs. Canopies with short recovery arcs generate a higher angle of attack during recovery even with no input.

Give Tonto a break. I for one appreciate his efforts to keep this forum clean of inane posts that belong in The Bonfire.

My Neptune (1) aids me in flying to my initiation point and (2) tells me if I am high or low once I get there. The second part is extremely helpful because it gives me an idea of what kind of turn I need to make. If I'm high I need to make a slow wide turn to bleed off altitude and use a shallow approach. If I'm low I need to make a fast tight turn and initiate recovery sooner (maybe while still in the turn). Knowing this at 700 feet is a lot better than suddenly realizing it at 200 feet.

The Neptune has been out for what? Two years now? Why would you wait for the Viso?

(1) penetration into the wind (2) minimize the number of steps on run out These are conflicting requirements that are more a function of wing loading than canopy design.

Your confusion is caused by a mistake I see repeated here often: You are changing your reference frame. When riser pressure is light you visualize pulling the canopy down to you (reference frame = pilot). When riser pressure is heavy you visualize pulling yourself up to the canopy (reference frame = canopy). The only thing that has changed is your reference frame. Your choice of reference frame is arbitrary but it must remain consistent throughout your analysis. To gain a better understanding of what is really happening try using the earth as your reference frame. When you pull on your front risers you are creating slack in them and effectively making them shorter. This results in the entire canopy/pilot system rotating (pitching forward) with respect to the earth. This effect is independent of riser pressure.

This guy has made four posts in this thread criticising a canopy he has obviously never even jumped. I understand and share Martini's annoyance.

It actually shrinks more than anything. Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction. My point is that a Spectra line set with 1000 jumps will likely be out of trim and this can adversely affect the openings. The anecdotal evidence here supports this conclusion.

Simple physics will tell you that in unaccelerated flight riser pressure is a function of your body weight and has nothing to do with the canopy (other than how it distributes your weight between the front and rear risers). In accelerated flight, however, your apparent weight changes and so does your riser pressure. When your canopy is flying towards you (ie. at the start of a dive) your riser pressure decreases. When your canopy is flying away from you (ie. during dive recovery) your riser pressure increases. The more speed you have generated in the dive and the faster you recover from the dive the more riser pressure will build up. This *IS* a function of canopy size and canopy design. It is also where technique comes into play. Sabres and Crossfires both have long recovery arcs so they don't have a strong tendency to pull out of a dive on their own. However, a large Sabre will generate speed more gradually then a smaller Crossfire. That makes technique on the Crossfire more critical for managing riser pressure. You like to start your turn from deep brakes (as I do). Think about what happens when you are in deep brakes and suddenly release them all the way. The canopy surges (dives) very briefly and starts to recover right away. As it is recovering the riser pressure spikes. The trick is to avoid that spike by slowly releasing your brakes and smoothly making the transition to front risers. Also, as the turn progresses you need to make sure that the turn rate and the dive rate do not decrease until you are ready for the plane out phase. This might require increasing control input (front riser and harness) as the turn progresses. Finally, let off the controls smoothly during the plane out phase. A spike in riser pressure here will make it harder to make the small corrections you might need to hit the gates. ASIDE: What's with the Sabre bashing? Sabres are designed to open fast. Some people consider that a feature. Sabres don't hunt and they don't tend to twist up like the slower opening canopies that snivel forever. For the record I put 700 jumps on that Sabre 150 before I let you borrow it. I didn't have any trouble with it but now it has around 1000 jumps on that line set. Spectra stretches so it is surely out of trim. You should mention that first before you jump on the Sabre bashing bandwagon.

Do the cutaway cables stay attached to the slider when you pull them?