danielcroft

I'm not going to suggest that's a good idea given that you have 777 jumps in your profile but, you're a grown ass people so... I'm not sure on the logo, probably just ask your dealer.

RIP, Andy. He was a good presence here on dz.com.

Linda was my instructor long after I had my A license. Thank you for all you taught us, Linda. Fly baby fly.

I use the snaps every time. I was on a team a couple of years ago flying my VC84 and had the same packer not using the snaps and then using the snaps I did notice a slight difference. One of the things I noticed when demo-ing the Helix was how slow it opens compared to the VC/VK/Leia; the problem was, I was packing slow and causing the wing to have a reaaaaaaaly slow opening which lead to more off headings, etc. The biggest difference was the slider position. After speaking with Scott about it, he'd suggested the slider being just quartered whereas, with VC/VK/Leia I've generally pulled the nose of the slider forward. The snap location on the front of the slider gives an inch or two of material forward to allow the slider to hit the wind first. I make sure, before I cocoon that the slider is still forward in that configuration. I pack pretty weird and, pretty neat (*cough*slow*cough* ) I could probably take a picture of what I mean this weekend if that doesn't make sense?

Keeping in mind that density altitude at 8k will impact your altitude loss and speed. I was pretty happy with this turn, not perfect by any stretch. At sea level into a ~10mph wind. ** n.b. includes free fall

They checked my references. If you're buying through a PD dealer, the dealer will make the determination, at least, that's how I understand it. Here's a picture because it's a picture thread.

Good advice.

So much to work on, on every jump. ;-)

Do you want to describe how you're packing it? Your loading, etc. I personally fold the outer cells in front of the next two inboard cells on either side, leaving the center cell completely clear (based on advice from the pro swooper I bought my VC84 off). I also make sure the slider is well forward in the pack job. I don't use the collapsible slider though, I much prefer to use just the slider from the RDS and deal with the slight amount of extra time re-attaching. I don't work in the industry, though. That's on my VC84 loaded at ~2.0:1.

Only to hear the cries of "they weren't using the tools available to them to mitigate the risk; a lack of audible canopy alarms was a link in the chain to this incident." I'm fine not using an altimeter or audible for freefall (but, prefer to use both - I have two audibles) but, if I'm trying to swoop, I'd much prefer to have my eyes in the prize *AND* other canopy traffic than watching my altimeter. How better to learn the site picture than to be looking at it when your audible tells you what number you're looking at?

The part of the recovery arc that I'm trying to emphasize in the context of learning to swoop and progressing through lower to higher performance wings is the tendency for wings such as a Sabre 2 or Crossfire 2 to recover with a high point at the end of the arc. Progressing from a wing that will recover in this manner with even a very low efficiency turn to a wing that won't ever do that without pilot input is a really important part of what it means to talk about recovery and, particularly progression. I guess what I'm looking to describe is part of the recovery that differs so much between "swooping" and "non-swooping" wings. We can talk about a longer recovery arc but the tendency of a wing to recover in a way that helps a pilot in trouble or not is something I don't have a name for. Thanks for the comments, I'll word what I'm getting at differently.

I'm not sure "lower performance" has the connotation that I'm looking for but, I guess that's what I hope. I hope that, rather than having a SA2 at one of the spectrum, the VE/VC at the other and, the KA only one tiny step back from the VE/VC that we end up with a wing that will allow people to step more appropriately towards the ultra high performance wings that are available to the public. The "problem" with the KA is that, there's no wing (in PD's range and, I'd argue NZA's either) that serves as that stepping stone. You could argue for a larger, more lightly loaded KA but, I think that a SA2 loaded reasonably for people to be progressing (1.4/1.5 for argument's sake) puts them up there in terms of KA recovery and performance. You're combining a change of sight picture (a significant change, IMO) with a negative recovery cycle which makes for two, critical changes to wing performance that will both bite people pretty hard. When I say "SA2 loaded reasonably for progression", I mean, I'd question the efficacy of transitioning to a more tapered, higher performance wing like the KA without having first flown a more docile wing at higher loadings. Sure, it's doable for some and, with the right training, may be fine but, I'm trying to explain a good progression here. I'd like to see the KA2 with a slightly shorter recovery arc and a neutral recovery cycle but, that's dependent on wing design, it's not like you check a couple of boxes and get exactly what you want.

So far, rumor mill says: "Katana 2" - successor to the KA - let's hope it's not quite as high performance as the KA (depending on loading, blah, blah) "Crossfire 3" - it's another crossfire so, same concept - great all-rounder "Crossfire X" - meant to be a competitor to the "KA2" - proper step for people looking to get into HP landings All 3 are meant to be on the "Schumann Planform" continuum (tapered leading edge, straight trailing) As far as recovery arc goes, I like to make a distinction between recovery arc and recovery cycle. The "recovery cycle" being the behavior of the wing at the bottom of the arc. The KA (VE/VC/VK/Leia/etc.) all recover negatively, i.e. return to full flight without going up. The Crossfire 2 (SA2, Safire, etc.) recover positively, meaning that they'll tend to "go up". This helps save your ass if you haven't learnt how (and, more importantly) when to bail. Not saying this is new info to everyone here but, I find it helpful when explaining to people who are looking to dip their toes into swooping (see what I did there?) and are wondering about different wings.

This is a great place to start. Even when you're not a student, still a great place to start.

Thank you for this, super helpful! My data may not be worth much (I'm far from good) but happy to share. @raymod2 - any chance you could list the rotation of the turn in the list of swoop files?

There are plenty of people following, maybe they're not as sensitive to carp-related typos...

Very true. Greg's video shows him gently pulling the fronts down a very small amount. Don't ask me how I know that's important...

This may all be true for the US system but, the ISG/iFly situation was precipitated by a patent case in Germany, not the US.

As you can see, same exact article except for the tracking code query string parameter attached. The article itself does a pretty poor job of covering the situation which has a significant impact on the indoor skydiving market in the US and, the rest of the world. Doesn't mention even a hint of impact on consumers (that's us) or any sense that there's some oddness going on here that ISG would do an about face with clearly negative results for themselves. The title of the article should be "Metni writes letter that we publish a section of".

There are, indeed. You mean exactly the same article that was posted to start this thread?

People tell me you get used to the 4 grommet per corner attachment and, it gets faster but for me, Fluid's slider attachment is the most fiddly. I've jumped PD, NZA and Thrill Inc. in addition to Fluid's system on a helix.

Poor lawyer advice leading to a complete capitulation isn't "fair and square" in my book. Not to mention that an action in another country now has impacted the world market for indoor skydiving. Let's hope that another player in the market will step up and be better at defending their *rightful* claims than ISG. How did the judge eventually rule on the case in Germany?

Which "judge" are you actually talking about? There was no ruling by a judge in the US at all.

I doubt that would surprise many people given the vociferousness of iFly's actions towards FliteShop/ISG. We all talk about having competition but, plenty of people suffer more for the outcome of the situation in Germany. Makes you wonder what infringement of patents would require the scale of concessions given by ISG. My worst 1st world tunnel related nightmare.