Positive recovery arc vs. negative recovery arc

[Canuck 0]

Two points:

#1 - The positive/negative recovery arc thing has provided a nice excuse for people to buy canopies that are out of their leaugue under the guise of "it's safer because I can make my turns higher." Um...get real.

#2 - The Stiletto is probably the most notoriously short (negative for those who like to use the term) recovery arc canopy on the market, yet that doesn't stop the Airspeed crew (and others) from swooping the living shit out of them. And not once have I seen them turn low. Fast recovering canopies require long, slow, progressive turns to build up speed - which is the proper way to swoop any canopy.

Canuck

[AggieDave 6]

(Agreeing with you Canuck):

Since I bought a Heatwave (basically stiletto knockoff) at 200 jumps, it was my "learn to swoop" canopy.

That short recovery arc was a curse, but a number of times it was a blessing, since it kept me from pounding in after doing something stupid.

Basically, in the end, no matter what the recovery arc is on your canopy, you just need to learn how to fly it properly and safely.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Bosveld 0]

Ok,

I can't really argue at all, like I said I am still learning. Before I am going to go and break myself, I'd rather listen to as many oppinions as possible in order to get the best.

I just found that by doing the same long slow diving front rizer turns with a couple of canopies, the ones that felt safest and turn slowest was ones with long recovery arcs. And this fitted with advice I got from experienced swoopers. I found canopies with quick recovery arcs I had to turn lower, and they turned faster on front rizers, which was not comfortable for me, and scared me.

If you could please explain to me why you think short recovery arcs is safer, it would be much appreciated. Don't just tell me this is how it is, and that's it.

thanks

Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, will be true!

[Canuck 0]

Alright,

I never said that canopies with short recovery arcs are safer, I said canopies with long recovery arcs are not less dangerous. Semantics I guess, but there is a difference. If I had to argue the case though, I would say (as Aggie Dave alluded towards) that short recovery arc canopies can be more tollerant of an "oops I turned too low" due to their natural tendancy to recovery quickly.

The other thing to consider is, it's not the turn that kills you, it's not having your canpy over your head when you get to the ground that kills you. That's why we teach flat turns for example. So, the deal with swooping a canopy like a Stiletto is that yes, you may need to turn it a little lower, but in a slow carving turn, the canopy is always pretty much above you, and hence you're never really in trouble as long as you flare when it's time!!!!!

Make sense?

Canuck

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

...that short recovery arc canopies can be more tollerant of an "oops I turned too low" due to their natural tendancy to recovery quickly.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a whole lot more digging going on from people flying canopies with short recovery arcs.

Having flown a canopy that had a tolerance of about 15 feet for an entry point for a 90 (it wanted to be right at 225ft for my type of turn), I can say that a short recovery arc canopy gave me less time to finesse the turn and the approach than a canopy with a longer recovery arc.

I now have a Samurai with a trim change that makes it dive more and the recovery arc even longer than stock. When I have danced too long with the devil in the corner, I have not had any problem digging out. So, from my experience, I disagree that the longer recovery arc can be less tolerant

I really don't understand your logic on this, actually. If I am starting out low on a short recovery arc canopy, I will be planning out earlier. Correct? To me that says that I have less time to see what's going on, process the info, realize I am low and take the corrective course of action (finishing in toggles, rears, harness or just stabbing out like a mofo with his hair on fire).

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I see a whole lot more digging going on from people flying canopies with short recovery arcs.

That's their screw up. The point was, that a short recovery arc will give you a better chance to dig out and walk away when you turn low, then a long recovery arc. Think about it, it'll make sense.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnischalke 0]

If you start both turns at the same altitude, yeah, that makes sense, but where i might start a 180 on a stilletto is probably about 200 ft below where I would start the same turn on my samurai. If I start my turn on my samurai at the same altitude as the stilletto and don't finish the turn on another input or simply stop the turn, yes, I am gonna bounce.

Nonetheless, I don't see how a shorter recovery arc will provide you with a better chance to dig out--especially when having to dig out is not a neccessary or intended part of the approach, unless you are competing.

I think we just spring from differing schools of thought. You can turn as low as you like and stab as much as you like, but I will always be working on turning high, building speed, releasing the turn and picking my own plane-out point, not letting the canopy pick it for me.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You can turn as low as you like and stab as much as you like, but I will always be working on turning high, building speed, releasing the turn and picking my own plane-out point, not letting the canopy pick it for me.

Who said that's how I fly, we've never even met before, nice assumption there chief.

The point was, if you fuck up, do a low turn, a positive recovery arc will give you a better chance, since there is less dive in the canopy to over come to save your ass.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnischalke 0]

The word was "can," dave. calm down. I wasn't saying you do.

Back to the subject... Actually, I don't know if it's because I start higher, but I usually know when I need to abort a turn before I am half-way through it. Then, I still got 250 ft or so to use another input and finish.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[crazy 0]

Quote

Nonetheless, I don't see how a shorter recovery arc will provide you with a better chance to dig out

One reason could be that to get the same effect (flattening out within a height of 30 feet for instance) you need less toggle input, which means less distorsion on the airfoil, which means less risk of stalling. Conversely, with the same input (same risk of stalling), the canopy with a shorter recovery arc might allow a much shorter recovery.

Quote

I think we just spring from differing schools of thought. You can turn as low as you like and stab as much as you like, but I will always be working on turning high, building speed, releasing the turn and picking my own plane-out point, not letting the canopy pick it for me.

Why do you assume that it's possible to control the plane-out point only on canopies with long recovery arc? If you had a better understanding of canopy flight, you would easily acknowledge that flying a canopy with a short recovery arc is not all about turning low and stabbing. Whatever the recovery arc, it's all about "working on turning [at an appropriate altitude], building speed, releasing the turn and picking [your] own plane-out point, not letting the canopy pick it for [you]". The main differences come from the sequence and duration of the different inputs (single/double front risers, rear risers, toggle, and harness). Even this doesn't depend a lot on the recovery arc, but on many other factors, including the pilot. At the end of the day, you will find some pilots toggle hooking their stiletto higher than the average VX pilot would start front risering.

--
Come
Skydive Asia

[Canuck 0]

OK, I don't know how to do the little quote trick, but dude...

"when having to dig out is not a neccessary or intended part of the approach, unless you are competing."

One of these
One of these
And one of these

Digging and competing have NOTHING to do with one and other.

As for the main point of this thread, you are obviously not understanding that not all turns are alike, not all turns should be alike, and not all canopies respond well to the same type of turn.

Canuck

[Bosveld 0]

Thanks guys for all your input.

My conclusion is, whatever you jump, learn to fly it according to it's characteristics. And keep it safe.

Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, will be true!

[mnischalke 0]

There is a lot of power in the corner. I don't think anybody is gonna disagree with that. I have seen several competiters who consistently use the corner as part of their regular approach. So yes, I believe that for some, competing and getting the corner go hand in hand.

That isn't my point. My point was that a canopy with a short recovery arc is not "more tolerant" than one with a longer recovery arc simply because it comes out of a dive more quickly.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[marks 0]

Quote

There is a lot of power in the corner. I don't think anybody is gonna disagree with that. I have seen several competiters who consistently use the corner as part of their regular approach. So yes, I believe that for some, competing and getting the corner go hand in hand.

That isn't my point. My point was that a canopy with a short recovery arc is not "more tolerant" than one with a longer recovery arc simply because it comes out of a dive more quickly.

i dont believe that one bit......

i believe if your in the corner and you dig out your ruining all your speed.....

try it.. you will not get much distance at all if you have to dig out of the corner.ok.... so dont try that..

that "power" that you feel is just the pendulum effect under the wing..

[Canuck 0]

Frightening that you actually believe this...

Please don't share your wisdom with others...

Nobody, and I mean nobody, who actually knows anything about swooping would make this type of claim, and nobody, and again I mean nobody, who is on the PST intentionally puts themself deep in the corner.

Oh yeah...that "power" you are refering to is the rapid deceleration you get when you stab the toggles to keep your femurs out of the earth.

Please do your homework.

Canuck

[mnischalke 0]

I am sorry, because I can't seem to find something. Where exactly did I say "deep" into the corner?

Can one not also dig out on the rear risers?

Maybe we have different definitions of "the corner," but in the 3 pro events I attended last year, I saw the same competitors consistently using rears to dig from what i consider in the corner. (And no, I don't mean just using rears to plane out.) That feeling was also shared by people I talked to who competed at the events.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Can one not also dig out on the rear risers?

Sure, you'll give yourself a highspeed stall and you'll slam into the deck.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnischalke 0]

Sooooo, if a swooper is in the corner and digs out on the rears, he will have a high-speed stall? Maybe that should be "can," or "has a higher probability of a high-speed stall depending upon the amount of input he's giving the canopy."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

"has a higher probability of a high-speed stall depending upon the amount of input he's giving the canopy."

If a swooper is truely having to dig out, then it is very likey to have a high speed stall. If a swooper is bumping to plane out, then not so much.

I have a feeling what a lot of folks call bumping you're calling digging out.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Canuck 0]

OK...I see how it is...

No point in continuing this discussion. Either you have realized that you're wrong, and are trying to weasle out of it without having to admit it, or you still think you're right, even though several people with more experience and time in have told you that you are wrong. Either way, my time would be better spent doing almost anything else.

I tell ya what, you find one single person who competed at the Pro level in a PST sanctioned meet last year who will come on line and say that it is normal to dig out of the corner, not just "use rears to plane out" (your words), but actually "dig" (yup, your word again) and I'll stand corrected.

Good luck

Canuck

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Canuck, I can tell with every certainty that the E-line mod was invented for the purpose of avoiding a dynamic rear riser stall for times when a competitor feels he just "must" dig on rears as opposed to simply bailing to toggles. Is digging on rears the right thing to do? No, not in my opinion, but that does not mean that some people go to extraordinary lengths to stay on rears, regardless of dig. Your one high-tier name is: Jay Moledski, the creator of that mod. As competitors become more attuned to the stall limits on rears, they are willing to push it a bit further. I have, to date, not dynamically stalled my Velo on rears, but I have come damn close (one PST Panama City distance round) when I really got deep in the corner yet cranked it out on rears. Others have tried and failed in competition. Joe Bennet, Andy Anderson, and Andy Farrington have all dynamically stalled on rears in competition. When it's "all or nothing", some people are willing to risk such stalls in hopes of placing high. Likewise, competitors at the highest level are also pushing it to the opposite extreme, often getting "vertical extensions" and getting zeros on rounds because they were too lean; just barely missing the tops of the entrance gates in hopes of blistering down the course, right in the meat of the powerband. I have seen and continue to see both extremes in competition.

Chuck
a PST professional

[Canuck 0]

Thanks Chuck, I was hoping you would jump in on this.

I absolutely agree with you on the e-line mod being developed as a save your ass without hitting the toggles invention. But are you saying that Jay intentionally puts himself deep in the corner on his runs knowing the mod will save him, or that it just often turns out that way becasue he is pushing it to the limits?

Canuck

[mnischalke 0]

As if it isn't bad enough that you attempt to insult me, why do you keep throwing out the word "DEEP?"

Please show me where I have ever said that in this thread!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Canuck 0]

Deep is implicit by your statement. If the competitor isn't "deep" in the corner, then they wouldn't need to "dig" because the canopy would have time time recover on its own, or with less input than would be called "digging." If they were not "deep" and they did in fact "dig" they would level out too high. So no, you didn'y say deep, but like I said, it's implicit by your description.

Listen, I'm not trying to insult you, I just think it's super dangerous to be posting that it'snormal, or even ok, to have to dig out of your turns in a forum filled with often indiscriminating readers.

I believe what Chuck is saying is that there are three possible outcomes of a competition run:
1. Turn is too high, you get a VE and a zero (bad)
2. Turn is the perfect height, no digging involved, and you get the optimal run (excellent)
3. Turn is too low, you have to dig, you're not going to get the optimal run, but at least you will still score (good). And in this case, being able to dig with rears is better than having to dig with toggles, and this is where the e-line mod comes in.

So, in a do or die situation with the money on the line, you're better to err on the side of three rather than the side of one, as some points are better than none. That does not, however, mean that digging will in any way enhance your swoop.

And the most important point of all, there is no such thing as too high when it comes to safety, only too low. I stand fully behind my claim that if you are digging, you have turned lower than is safe.

Canuck

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Nonetheless, I don't see how a shorter recovery arc will provide you with a better chance to dig out--especially when having to dig out is not a neccessary or intended part of the approach, unless you are competing.

Is what I said, and I stand by that.

I still also disagree with your earlier statement

Quote

I would say (as Aggie Dave alluded towards) that short recovery arc canopies can be more tollerant of an "oops I turned too low" due to their natural tendancy to recovery quickly.

I think that's dangerous posting for the often indiscriminating reader.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.