danielcroft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKvMcV0GECY

Or maybe the Sony Rx0 https://www.sony.com/electronics/RX0-series

I've jumped a 115 (1.6:1) (owned it for a while), 110 and I think I jumped a 100 at some point. They're good wings, a little steeper than the Crossfire 2 but don't open as well. I'd vote them a little better an option for swooping that the XF2 and, for the price, they're pretty great. To be honest, if you want to swoop, I think the Katana is a better option. If you want an all around canopy the Crossfire 2 (haven't jumped a 3 yet) is better but, if you're worried about price then I think the Odyssey is pretty good.

Make sure you're seating your visor correctly in the mechanism. There's a small tab on the circular connection part on the inside of the side of the visor (where it interfaces with the closure). To make sure that your visor is correctly installed, line up the circular part of the visor with the circle on the mechanism, push the release button - this causes the spring loaded piece to open - allowing the tab on the visor to fit under the spring loaded piece of the mechanism then, release the button. If you can see the tab, or the spring loaded piece isn't covering the tab (i.e. it's not being pushed back into place) the problem may be there. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. Hope this helps.

Thanks.

This ^ Except I didn't watch the video.

Tonfly 2X, TF mount, chin cup + cutaway. Sony A7 & gopro hero 5, have my flysight mount on it as well. Hypoxic adapter for the A7.

You definitely have a point, I don't know what the best approach is, though. Given that Scott already has the wing, is already jumping it and, seems to have a consistent turn (given the video we have). If you want to refute his claims that people are ok with where he's at you kind of over-step what's possible in an online forum. For me, I'd want to reach out to those people you two have in common and attempt to address it that way. Fact is, some people are just going to do what they're going to do and you/we can't influence that decision. So, what do you do? I've generally taken the approach of trying to offer useful advice without being too judgmental because that'll generally shut down any chance for a dialog. That's not to say that I don't think it's worth pointing out for the others following along at home to identify the issues but, without some reasoning behind that, we as a community often don't actually make a convincing argument. "You're going to die" isn't rational, especially given that the community is populated by people who often got exactly the same warnings. I'd personally like to Scott take his turn higher and, slow it down to give himself more room to deal with the inevitable human errors but, I don't know him and, why would he listen to random internet guy anyway? What I can do is try to make a sound argument as to why that approach would be preferable, identify any other issues I can see but, ultimately, you're not going to convince someone that something's broken until they see it themselves. I genuinely hope (SoFPiDaRF jokes aside) that the broken-ness is addressed before people become broken. This, is waaaaay off topic now, I apologize to peeps who were trying to see right hand turns and have had to wade through yet another "you're going to die" swoop conversation. Scott more than happy to chat further about any of this via a different medium (or, different thread, I don't need privacy) like facebook or whatever.

Hey, thanks for listening and taking my comments as intended.

Fair enough, maybe I was just reading too much into your post.

I wouldn't want to do my turn from that height but, the video shows his turn isn't super low or anything. He's doing his turn in 4-5 seconds and, his rollout is 4+ seconds every time (in that video, at least) there are are other, more pressing problems for me (given that his actual turn is well represented by that video). 1. Gloves + risers = bad IMO. You can make the argument that you've learnt your gear enough to know where your risers are but *not* when you have to look at your loops for a good couple of seconds in order to start your turn (meanwhile potentially missing unexpected traffic). 2. The style of turn has the potential to lead to being low - if I get my pattern wrong, do a longer lead in to hit my gates, my already fast turn doesn't allow me to speed up at all. This means the person would need very good pattern discipline. 3. Oversteer in a turn that low will give you *very* little room to recover - you'd better know how to bail 4. Impinging on main landing area on one of those turns... 5. I'd hope the chap in question, with so few jumps, would have an assload of hop and pops and, a bunch of coaching and, those coaches would have given him advice on how to do that turn That's not to say that someone who's motivated can't be safe and, well trained by 600 jumps on a VK96 @ 2.6 but that would make them an outlier. Back to the main point: the turn from that height is clearly possible and, seems to be reasonably not sketchy. The question is whether the person in question has the experience to know when they can't make that turn and, how close they are to minimum turn height with their "normal" turn. Personally I want to make my turn from as close to max as possible to give myself more time to recognize and handle mistakes so, I've built my turn that way. Thank you for posting your 450ºs, I'm starting to do my calculations for doing 450ºs so, it's nice to have the visuals.

Really depends on the type of turn you're doing. Flare start, no fronts, full speed start... etc. I do my 270º from 850 (maybe should be a little lower) at sea level VK75PS loaded at 2.4.

I've always had an issue with this characteristic - if you build more energy your recovery changes. In my head that means the better my turn, the higher I have to start so, as I improve, my room for error is constantly decreasing. I've had other people tell me this about some wings and it's always made me a little uncomfortable. Clearly, things change in canopy performance as we build energy but if that's a function of any wing, I don't know why, for some wings, people comment on it. Not a negative comment on the Crossfire 3, I have several friends who have them and love them - nothing but good reviews from them.

Rest in peace, Sinisa.

If you focus too much on the words people use you'll never understand what they're trying to say. The question is whether or not an organization focussed on one sport should branch out (or annex?) another. Is there sufficient overlap between the two to make that a logical, efficient or practical thing to do. For example, would you vote for the same BoD members if you knew they were making decisions that impacted tunnel activities (competition or otherwise)? I know I wouldn't. If we're only talking about a new license type, purely for tunnel flying, for the purposes of competition at FIM sanctioned events for people who aren't already skydiving/parachuting for some nominal amount to cover what it *actually* costs to issue said licenses then I'm in favor, otherwise, no. The IPC already issues judging rules and guidelines, I don't see why the USPA needs to be added. ... currently the FAI's page for indoor skydiving is "Under construction" http://www.fai.org/ipc-our-sport/indoor-skydiving

Hey Larry... "1 post" What was the size differential on your Leia to Helix comparison?

If the USPA wants to define what constitutes contributory or substitutional training in a tunnel, it can easily do that now. There's no need for it to be involved at any level in administration. I'm not sure where you think any kind of streamlining comes from in an overlap here. The USPA (as Chuck rightly stated) was designed to promote and represent skydiving, i.e. people who jump from planes. The idea that this core skillset should or could effectively overlap into tunnel flying at a minimum would require expansion and time, i.e. money. This, even given if it was a good idea - which I still believe it is not. The tunnel is a valuable tool for skydivers, adding structure to that is something that the USPA could and should do *in the context of skydiving* that does not involve administering a totally different sport.

My understanding, particularly with the pilot and similar designs, was that the (relatively) poor flare power was mostly due to the trim of the canopy. Being that pilots are trimmed pretty flat (Pulse as well) means there's not much AoA delta to put into flare. Always flying in brakes isn't a great idea but, full flight trimmed flat will have a similar result.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the USPA involving itself in anything tunnel related. It's not the same sport. You can look at something like a VFS/FS competition in tunnel as similar to a skydiving competition in that a lot of the same skills are used, however, the risks, training and associated knowledge bases are different. The USPA should be looking at "owning" fewer things, not more.

https://www.instagram.com/matt_reilly_/ Matt has been posting some videos under his HKT. I'm surprised you're not making FT-30 an option on your HKT, Alex.

No worries, I'm sure you guys have other things to do. ... unlike Pobrause

Stoked to have got my Valkyrie 75 Hybrid. Haven't had a chance to actually land it with a real swoop yet (thanks to high heat and turbulence) but happy so far with the small taste I've had. I have around 500 jumps on my VK79, the VK75PS packs about as big although PD says it packs only a half size bigger with the sail ribs. I'm sure it'll settle out a little once I've got a few more jumps on it. I bumped my turn up 50ft but, haven't had a chance to land in conditions where I was willing to do my turn. I'll update when I've had a chance to fly it more.

Please add the following wings when you have a chance: - Valkyrie Hybrid - Horizon - HK - HS - HK Terminal - Airwolf - Tesla - Crossfire 3 - x-fire - s-fire Thanks!

If only I had prehensile toes.