• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


RiggerLee last won the day on May 5 2019

RiggerLee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Above reply is probable the best answer is probable the best. I'll bet that it's really not that fun when taken as a whole. Stop and think about the logistics of trying to fly it. You really need a tail gate. The awkwardness of it. The complexity of integrating the wing... Yes they have made some spectacular videos. I'll bet he doesn't go out and make 10 jumps a day with it just for fun with his buds. if you really want to do this don't let any one tell you that it's impossible. In comparison to building a kit plane it's a rather small project. Don't let any one tell you that you need 10,000 jumps to fly it but 500 wing suit jumps probable wouldn't hurt.I You could do this if you really wanted to but if this is your sole goal. I think you will become disenchanted pretty quickly. Skydiving is a broad community that offers a lot and this is about as nitch as you can get. Lee
  2. The comment about Indian woman is kind of an inside joke about Mandy. for a while we seemed to be getting a lot of tandem students from India. She was by far the smallest tandem master so when the Indian family's would show up she would get the small Indian woman. She was absolutely convinced that they could not arch. They always went fetal on her. She was convinced, and she had more empirical evidence then any one I know, that Indian woman were genetically, culturally incapable of arching and would always go fetal on exit. No other group exhibited this phenomenon. Indian woman can not arch. Just ask her. She'll tell you her self. Indian woman are the only cultural/racial group that can not skydive. Lee
  3. Back in the day shipping weight on a tandem rig with harness was 60 lb. I'm curious what the newer smaller rigs are weighing in at now? Mandy looked almost ridicules wearing those big strong rigs. I'm wondering if the smaller rigs would be any more ergonomic, better suited to some one with a shorter mlw, maybe narrower? Or are they still being built on the same long wide patterns? Your also liable to get stuck with all the small Indian woman... And we all know how they are. Lee
  4. They have been working on it for over thirty years. Can't really get around the ratios of the the size of the rings to their guage and the thickness of the webbing. Mini rings are really just too small. There are the aerodine rings which are a substantial improvement. Not quite as good as large rings but so so much better then any mini ring riser. The substantially reduice the internal stresses between the second and third ring. And consequently the load on the loop. I think the reduction in internal stress is the most important part as i have seen risers fail at the tape for the third ring. We've actually pull tested... well everything trying to build 20,000 lb releases. So we've actually pulled all of these peaces of hardware and designs to destruction with load cells. 15,000 lb webbing is exciting when it lets go. Some of the hardware send pieces flying when it snaps. The aerodine rings were some of the best. If you are curious their failure mode is that they bend wrapping around the main ring rather then snapping but you have to build a kevlar riser to have enough strength to make them do it. Lee
  5. It looks like what you have there is just an attached bag. That's normal on there retract pilot chute systems. I'm not seeing a "flag bag" in your pictures, that is also a thing. Flight concepts builds a flag bag on the bottom skin. Flag flies between the canopy and riser. So if it's just the attached deployment bag. This is something they often do with retract, not to be confused with collapsible pilot chutes. The cord bridle runs through rings inside the canopy. When you pack it you pull out the bridle you compress those rings, making sure the fabric is clear. On opening the rings spread retracting the bridle so that the pc is sucked into that grommet and nothing trails behind the canopy. It's a CRW thing. The bag is attached so that the weight of it done not pull the pc and bridle out of the canopy during a wrap when the canopy is collapsed. If it is lose the bag will swing around like a bolo and wrap around things. That's what a lot of companies have gone to tail pockets. To pack it you first need the proper length cord bridle. Attache it to and route it through the internal rings. When you pack it clear the fabric. You had to fold it so that the grommet is at the top. Pull the bag around the canopy and close just like any canopy. Bridles tend to be short. You might want to go to a pullout. But you may need a cord extension because the base of the pc will actually be pulled into the grommet. Call Red, he will walk you through it. Lee
  6. I have no idea how this got so complicated. I'd just do it. There are some basic rules like don't use a slider with grommets significantly wider then your cell. Depending on the length of your stabilizers your slider should not be setting on your bottom skin when packing. If it's so much wider that it's just crumpled on the bottom skin the fabric will not be holding the grommets up the lines till they slide low enough to lift the fabric off the bottom skin. Only then will the wind be holding it up. That's a fairly extreme limit but I have seen people make that mistake. Don't people futz with there gear any more? Lee
  7. Ground hungry... I wouldn't list the Spectra as being a particularly ground hungry canopy. There are certainly other canopies out there that are steeper trimmed. Keep in mind that any canopy that is designed to land easily and be forgiving on the flare will have to have an excess of flare authority. It has to be trimmed a little steeper to have the ability to increase it's CL to give you that powerful flare. If you were to fly a flatter canopy, one with a flatter glide, less ground hungry, you would find that the flare is some what less forgiving. I actually prefer flatter canopies and the way you generally land them is with a little extra speed. Even just a bit of front riser, so in a since you trim it more nose down, ground hungry, to get an easy landing out of it. One thing that was noticeable about the specter, is the way it pitches front to back. It was noticeable on landing as you descended in to the stiller air near the ground. When you passed through a wind shear between two layers. Think end of the day as the ground cools off and the ground winds die but the wind is still blowing a couple hundred feet up. Well there is a wind sheer as you drop from one layer to the next. Some of your airspeed goes away. Interestingly the larger the canopy is for you the more noticeable this is. 5 knts is a larger percentage of your air speed and when that head wind dies you are 5 knts slower. The canopy wants to correct that. It wants to speed up. It feels like it takes off surging forward and down toward the ground. Flaring dosen't seem to help because the canopy is pitching forwards and can not make lift to support you till it pitches back above your head. The larger the canopy and the longer the lines the more dramatic this can be. You see it with student canopies. They induce it all the time. If you make a small turn with a break, the canopy pitches back and then when you let up on the toggle the canopy surges forward. Not a lot but enough to ruin your flare. Worse is the student that flares high and then decides to let up because miss judged it. When he tries to flare again the canopy is well in front of his body. These are more dramatic examples but the same thing happens when you come in to land. If the wind drops off you get a surge in the canopy. Some canopies do this more then others. Line length is one factor but I think the airfoil also plays a part in it. It really depends on the pitch stiffness of the canopy. I don't understand all of it. But it's noticeable in the specter. You might try a Triathlon. They are not as prone to this. Back when these canopies came out they were neck and neck and we had jumpers that went back and forth between the canopies. It was the same market. They loved the specter but had noticeable more trouble landing them under some conditions that they had no problem landing their Tri in. I would not categorize a specter as a bad canopy you just need to learn to land it. Under those conditions I like to carry a little extra speed, front risers, or a small turn but hook a bit high. The idea being to to have a bit more speed when you enter that still air. You could also barrow a saber 2 from some one and give it a try. They also have a forgiving flare. Or go up a size. But with the specter I think it may just be a mater of learning to reconise the wind conditions. Or just use it as an excuse to hook that bitch down wind on the last load of the day. That way the wind sheer acts in your favor. Or at least that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. Lee
  8. The difference in wing loading is not that great. Large canopies like that fly very well and will accommodate the weight easily. You'll probable find it to be just slightly more responsive. The differences when you down size are not directly related to wing loading. I know it's the number that we use but there are other factors like line length that also factor into how the canopy behaves. That's why 1.1 on a 150 is not the same as 1.1 on a 107. It's been an issue for small girls that get pushed into buying a smaller canopy because it's the "right" wing loading for her. If you could some how graph it, control response?, call it what you will it would look like a down wards turned hockey stick. That's a little misleading because I would not say that small canopies fly badly or control badly. I've had a lot of fun over the years flying small canopies but they can be a hand full for a young jumper. It's the difference in flying a highly loaded, heavy, air craft and a short coupled one. That refers to the size of the tail in respect to how far back it is. It makes it sporty, think Pits. So although you might fill the tanks and all the seats on a cessna and be over grouse, it's still a cessna. A Pits on the other hand, might be at the same wing loading but it is a very different airplane regardless of how heavy the cessna is. So that's part of why I don't think you'll have a problem down sizing. Not only is it a small change but you are well away from the bend in the hockey stick. Lee
  9. Well, since it's adjustable... Sorry, couldn't resist. As I recall the finger trap starts just past the grommet. and is short only about .75 inch. Then it runs out the other way 180 off from the loaded part of the loop. So it's tied at the washer. Washer on the inside of the pilot chute. comes up through the side grommet. Across the top of the hard cap. Turns and goes down through the center grommet. Just past the grommet is where the finger trap will be. It goes down and forms the loop. Comes back up and enters the finger trap, 0.75 inches? exits the finger trap. comes up through the grommet. Turns 90 deg. away from the side grommet. Exits from the soft cap through the little hole. Pull on that lose end to tighten. Tuck under the soft cap. Don't you have the manule? All of this must be in there. This is just memory from way to long ago. Lee
  10. I hope you got that fabric for free. It totally saturated my screen and caused strange artifacts around the edges. Hideous. Lee
  11. You know there are a lot of facets to the sport. I've found my self drifting from one to the next over the years. skysurfing, freestyle, CRW, base jumping, rigging, manufacturing, now I'm working on rockets and it looks like we are going to get the money to expand it into an orbital system. I don't think I could have done any one of those things for thirty years. Life is really more about growth. Some time that means turning in a new direction but in the end you may find that all of these things are interconnected. What you do is informed by all that you have done before. Every thing you have learned will carry over into what ever you do next. Maybe you'll build a container next. Maybe a pilot rig. One with low pack volume fabric. A better smaller canopy for them. Don't want to deal with a TSO? Maybe build a base rig. Want to do some thing new? Maybe build a modern version of a Sorcerer for the wing suiters. They jump slider up all the time. Maybe it's time they started carring a reserve? Or if you want to stick with canopies, how about doing some thing commercial. High percesion cargo is a thing. Militaries are investing large amounts of money in it in all sizes. There is a contract for a powered one to extend cross range. How about a high altitude eye in the sky, an air deployed aero stat. High altitude balloon. You can shoot down a drone even a big one at 30,000 ft but it's a lot harder to hit some thing at 80,000 feet. Who know were life will take you. Right now I'm actually taking an on line course. Fundamentals of space vehicle guidance, control, and astrodynamics. It's been a while since I stretched my brain cells this hard. Loving it. Getting into math I'd never dived into before. The only real secret in life is to not allow your self to become stagnant. And I still say the solution to all of your problems is to take out an ad in Parachutest or what ever you have over there selling canopies. You are now "Manufacturer" and blow a big fat raspberry at them. They don't want to run your ad, fine put it in parachutist and sell them here. Let me know and I'll renew just to have a copy of your ad to frame. Lee
  12. It's a product of design choices made in the shape of the stabilizer and from that the slider stops. I'll give you some examples. Look at a specter from PD 7 cell. short stabs. The stab starts at the A comes up slightly to the B attachment point where the slider stop is. The grommets are fairly close to the A's and level. Slow opening canopy with good mechanical advantage to the slider. Compare with the PD reserve. Noticeable longer stabilizers, slider grommets farther down from the A attachment point, lower mechanical advantage, faster opening canopy. Look at the old Flight Concepts reserves. Long flares but no stabilizers The slider initially sets at a very steep angle with the difference being the difference between the A and C Line length. The "ideal" stab shape based on reducing tip vortexcies would be a very different shape then what would be most convenient to support the slider. So like all things it's a compromise of very different objectives. Lee
  13. A Master rigger can perform an approved alteration to a TSO'd container. A manufacturer or the FSDO can approve an alteration. I have an approval for the addition of rings for a third canopy on my harness. If you can develop an alteration for a container or a type of container. Submit a write up on it including drawings, numbers, and test data. Enough for them to approve the alteration. Like meeting the relevant testing requirements for the TSO. you can perform that alteration on your rig, and depending on how it's written maybe all rigs of that type. All you have to do is figure out how to do it, write it up, and convince them that it works. You might actually find the first to be the hardest problem. It looks simple but there is more to that system them meets the eye. Just look at the SB on it. some of those measurements are real specific. Making it work isn't as simple as it seems. Lee
  14. I don't know what your talking about. The micro raven 150 was a perfectly good canopy for a 95 lb girl. I did every thing with my Maverick. I loved it. I don't know why people diss F111 canopies. I think they have a lot to offer. It's only a problem if you ask them to be some thing they are not. I beleve you can fly any thing, history has proven this, You just have to respect it and fly it appropriately. Lee
  15. I think he wants to really jump it not just put a jump on it. Hanging onto that bag while he free flys or wing suits will be a pain with all the risers and lines running to it. Lee