DocPop

Some comments on this thread: 1. Katanas 135 and larger have mesh on their sliders, 120 and smaller do not. 2. I used a Velo RS (not full RDS) on a KA120 and the openings, even at terminal, were improved in my opinion. 3. A full RDS is designed to reduce parasitic drag from the PC, bag etc after opening. If you are flying your KA to the point where you need an RDS to get better swoops, why not fly a VE or VC, which not only have RDS systems designed for them, but are also cleaners wings aerodynamically anyway? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I converted from TO to PO and would not go back. The downsides of a PO for me are: - you might find a packer that can't do it - deployments are slightly slower - possible floating pud (but I can reach the lanyard and deploy with my rig) The upsides are: - no exposed BOC to wear out - the PC can't "creep" out in the plane - I believe it is less likely to result in a premature deployment - it eliminates many kinds of horseshoe - it eliminates the pin-through-the bridle mal - the rig looks a lot neater - no possibility of the PC getting bunched up in the BOC - PC packing takes next to no time vs. a BOC - and probably more.... ETA: 1. deployments are quite different; practice on the ground with someone who jumps a PO. 2. Have a look at the Infinity with PO. The design is the best on the market IMO. Rounded corners on closing flaps and the tuck tab on the bridle are brilliantly simple but effective measures against hard pulls and floating puds respectively. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I believe the idea is to reduce drag due to wingtip vortices (air "spilling" from the high pressure area under the wing to the low pressure area on top). This is the same theory as the winglets on jet wings. Why inflatable? I think just to get them to perform better. If you look at conventional stabilizers a lot of the time they are fluttering - this in itself is creating drag. Just my thoughts as in interested party, but not an aerodynamicist. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Safe possibly (I do not know of any incidents caused by Skyhook), but definitely not always effective. There are many occurrences of Skyhook failing to beat the reserve pilot chute. In that case it is an expensive complication on the rig. I am not convinced of the need to 'better' the standard RSL. I'd be interested to hear from Kelly why Velocity have not pursued a MARD on the Infinity. That's a guy who does a lot of thinking about rig design and I'd value his input. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

The PD website states the following wingloading maximums for the ST190: Absolute 1.5 (285lbs) Expert 1.4 (266lbs) Advanced 1.2 (228lbs) Intermediate 0.8 (152lbs) There are plenty of jumpers with an exit weight in the 260-280 range. With a Stiletto they can enjoy an elliptical within the manufacturer's limits. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

IMO all ellipticals are not created equal. For example, the Stiletto and the Katana are very different animals. "Over-control" a Katana near the ground and it may drill you into a hole where the same input at the same altitude on a Stiletto may result in the natural recovery arc saving the jumper. Doesn't really answer the OP's question, but worth thinking about. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Skydive Pink Klatovy / CZ Skydive Z-Hills / Florida USA Skydive The Farm / Georgia USA Skydive Lillo / Spain Skydive Pullout / Italy Skydive Spaceland TX The Ranch NY CrossKeys NJ Skydive Paraclete XP (Raeford) Skydive New England Skydive Chicago Skydive Dubai - Desert Skydive Dubai - Palm Skydive UK Ltd (Dunkeswell) "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

IT'S FUCKING "THAN" NOT "THEN". If you don't sort your grammar out, how are people supposed to take your shit seriously? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That's BS. http://www.skydivemidwest.com/dropzone/aircraft/ "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Schuemann is an anglicized version of Schümann, as is Schumann. With regards to PD copying, I think it's very naive (or indeed naïve) to think think that PD would start marketing a canopy the year after they started development (assuming they started last year after Leia was announced. Buy NZA, buy PD - who cares. But to accuse PD of doing something wrong because they produced a wing that looks like another wing is way off the mark in my view. It's a parachute; chances are it's going to look like a parachute. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I beg to differ... I've yet to pound in on a turning approach to landing. 90, 180.... But the brake and surge approach has put me on the ground way harder than I could ever screw up a turn to final. When you slow the parachute down and then dive it--your taking away flare energy and if your timing is off you'll be hitting the ground hard with no way to fix it. Certainly when the winds are bumpy. If you initiate a canopy flight cycle by any means (surge or turn recovery) you can end up with reduced flare power if you time it wrong. I think your argument is a case of "I can't do it, therefore it can't be done". [Bolded for your convenience] So tell me what the point is. I believe mine was quite clear. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I beg to differ... I've yet to pound in on a turning approach to landing. 90, 180.... But the brake and surge approach has put me on the ground way harder than I could ever screw up a turn to final. When you slow the parachute down and then dive it--your taking away flare energy and if your timing is off you'll be hitting the ground hard with no way to fix it. Certainly when the winds are bumpy. If you initiate a canopy flight cycle by any means (surge or turn recovery) you can end up with reduced flare power if you time it wrong. I think your argument is a case of "I can't do it, therefore it can't be done". [Bolded for your convenience] "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I don't understand this statement. An elliptical planform has many benefits (also some downsides) at any wingloading including increased responsiveness to inputs and a more efficient use of lift from having more of the airfoil producing lift with a vertical vector and less at the ends where the vector is less vertical. I think you may be regurgitating the under-loaded cross-braced canopy argument, which does hold water for reasons I won't go into now, and applying it to non-x-braced ellipticals. Perhaps you could explain why the OP won't get "any benefits out of it" at 1.2, but at 1.4 it would all be tickety-boo? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I would agree, but that's not the same as saying you can't do conservative HP landings if you have been doing them previously. And before I get jumped on for that; yes, there are more and less conservative HP landings. IMO if you're jumping a cross-brace, you should not have to go back to straight-in landings if you downsize. Of course, there is nothing wrong with doing it, and everyone should be able to land straight-in, but I don't think it's the same as when a student downsizes. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Yea I got the same request. I am not even sure what the point of "friends" on here is. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I understood what you meant, but I am a Brit and I think we tend to assume sarcasm first! I found it pretty funny. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

TBH that doesn't seem all that extreme to me. If he just downsized one size and was competent at 180 or larger turns before then I don't see much of an issue purely based on the info you gave. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Does that mean I can't downsize my computer to a laptop? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

But I knew where to look for written guidance from manufacturers specifically against hook turning a tandem, didn't I? Now who has more credibility? (That's a rhetorical question) "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Not from the UPT manual, but from the USPA; nineteen tandem commandments http://parachutistonline.com/safety_training/the_rating_corner/tandem-commandments. These were drawn up with the input from UPT: If you will only accept that things are bad if they are specifically banned in manufacturers' manuals, how about Velocity 90s for students? It's not banned; just "Not Recommended". However, I think that most people would agree that it could lead to accidents and is unwise. http://www.performancedesigns.com/velocity.asp "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

That I do agree with. Unless one is aware of the risks, then one cannot properly address them. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Holy shit! So, 50% of jumpers don't make it to 51 jumps? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

All you can do from past jumps is learn. For the future, make sure you talk to your instructors about the canopy flight plan for that jump (it may very between jumps on the same day). Plan the flight, fly the plan, analyze the results and adjust accordingly. That's how we all learn. Good luck. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I haven't jumped a Neos, but if you're ready to move up from the Katana, the move to an appropriately sized Velocity is an easy transition. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Is it just me or does "quad bracing' sound like something you might need after you've hooked it into the ground and suffer a paralyzing spinal injury? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA