alan 1 #51 June 23, 2004 Quotethe PD113R is bigger than 113sqft And it is measured the same way as the Stiletto 120, so it would follow that the 120 is bigger than 120 as well, so other than stating the obvious, which as a rigger I am well aware of, do you have a point?alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daveb 1 #52 June 23, 2004 There is a difference between being able to handle a smaller canopy* vs continually jumping it. Besides, I won't actually switch to the PD113R for another couple of weeks, so as of today, I'm still following my own advice. ;-) * I have flown a smaller canopy a few times; when the time comes, I can land it safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kevin922 0 #53 June 23, 2004 QuoteMost people dont fucking need a Xbraced canopy.... Just out of curiousity can you tell me exactly who NEEDS a Xbraced canopy? Last time I checked the core purpose of the canopy was to get you to the ground safely... nobody NEEDS a Xbraced canopy any more than I NEED a ferarri or my own private jet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 June 23, 2004 QuoteJust out of curiousity can you tell me exactly who NEEDS a Xbraced canopy? Last time I checked the core purpose of the canopy was to get you to the ground safely... nobody NEEDS a Xbraced canopy any more than I NEED a ferarri or my own private jet. who NEEDS a Xbraced canopy? Professional skydivers who are on the swoop tour. Professional skydivers who do AFF or video and jump all the time. If you make less than 300 jumps a year, you are not current enought to jump a unltra performance canopy. Hate to break it to you, but 300 jumps a year is nothing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #55 June 23, 2004 QuoteIn the hope that perhaps a positive example is worthwhile, I'll outline my choices. I have over 2000 jumps, and fly a Stiletto 120 loaded 1.6. I have about 1000 jumps on this canopy size, flying in almost every condition except high-altitude DZs (e.g. Denver), including the 672-way in Bangkok (congested, tiny, no outs), numerous 100+ big ways, and 4-ways in most meteorological conditions, and can safely fly the canopy to where I want to land. How many jumps a year do you do? Me...I have 3,000 + jumps and jumps Stiletto 107 at 1.6 also. I have over 2,000 jumps on that sized canopy, and make over 300 jumps a year...And yet I still don't jump a Xbraced...I have, in fcat I have flow a Xbraced as small as 69ft. But I don't NEED it....I don't NEED the extra performance...So I don't have one. My ego does not make my gear choices."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #56 June 23, 2004 QuoteI was told by someone that makes canopies for a living that you can land any canopy that is currently on the market straight in. I was told that anyone that claims "I need to hook it to land it" is a poor pilot and probably needs to upsize. I recently watched two very skilled pilots land a Velo 90 and a Crossfire 99 straight in with very soft landings under a high wingloading. I tend to agree with the canopy representative. Any canopy CAN be landed straight in....I have done straight landings on my Xbraced 88 when I had it, and I landed my Velo 96 straight in to qualify on it for my PRO. Xbraced canopies are much better wings than conventional canopies. My conventional ST107 at 1.7 does NOT land as nice if I don't hook it. It CAN be done, but its not as nice. That is the main reason I don't jump a 97."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #57 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteI was told by someone that makes canopies for a living that you can land any canopy that is currently on the market straight in. I was told that anyone that claims "I need to hook it to land it" is a poor pilot and probably needs to upsize. If my memory is correct, the "someone" you are referring to could be John LeBlanc from Performance Designs. BINGO!_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #58 June 23, 2004 Same for a Comp Cobalt loaded at 2.1....no prob much softer landing than similarly loaded FX..but that is not saying much.."Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #59 June 23, 2004 I've flown my VX at 2.43 and it lands straight in just fine. The first jump I put on it was straight in and it landed perfectly. I had a xfire 149 at 1.8 and it landed straight in perfectly. If you can't land your canopy well in no wind on a straight in approach, you are in WAY ABOVE YOUR HEAD! Nothing NEEDS to be hooked......but it is much more fun if you can do it well. Personally, I did 500 jumps using a 90 degree front riser final turn before I started to build up to 180s and beyond. I began that progression at 200 jumps, and threfore had 700 jumps before I started hooking it. I'm glad I did because now at 2000+ jumps I can swoop pretty well and I can get myself out of everything (so far) without breaking me. I typically teach young swoopers that if they can't do a front riser 90 and start dragging the ground without touching their toggles, and do it 10 out of 10 times, then they are not ready for anything more. "When you can snatch the pea from my hand then you will be ready Grasshopper" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brains 2 #60 June 23, 2004 This thread has gotten way off topic As a relatively new jumper and hp canopy pilot I WANT someone to tell me when i am doing something wrong. However, i also continually ask those with far more skill than i for advice. Not everyone is blind to the dangers of hp landings, some of us want to be old skydivers too. Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #61 June 23, 2004 QuoteThere is a difference between being able to handle a smaller canopy* vs continually jumping it. Besides, I won't actually switch to the PD113R for another couple of weeks, so as of today, I'm still following my own advice. ;-) Hehe! I'm glad you caught the humor/irony in what I was trying to say. I have no doubt of your abilities. The difference between "being able to handle a smaller canopy vs continually jumping it" is one of luck. Being able to handle it means you will eventually get hurt if you continually jump it unless your luck holds out long enough for you to become proficient and know how to fly it. QuoteIn the hope that perhaps a positive example is worthwhile, Loading a reserve at 1.68 is positive example? Hehe, well at least it is a PD reserve, that must be the positive example! alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StearmanR985 0 #62 June 23, 2004 QuoteAs an ironic side note, the only DZ in the area that has banned hook turns is non-USPA. No point to prove -- just saying, hey, that's ironic! Hmm, you will see hooking there every weekend. I don't think it is a very official policy. At least it doesn't seem to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #63 June 23, 2004 Quotethe PD113R is bigger than 113sqft Not when measured against another PD product or any product measured using PD's method. Don't believe or perpetuate the hype. No one is safer under a smaller canopy just becaue it "flys bigger" or is measured smaller than compared to another design. PD's are one of the best reserve in the industry, but I sell a 113 as a 113.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mathias 0 #64 June 23, 2004 " but I sell a 113 as a 113. " JP, So I need a new rig and I want to downsize my reserve and main I'd like a PD113 or a Microraven 120 and a velocity 96, should I get the PD or the Microraven? Probably the raven right since it is bigger? What do You think?Ingen minns en fegis! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #65 June 23, 2004 I don't sell the Micro Raven. The R-max from Precision is measured the same way PD's are so I would sell them a 118 R-Max if they wanted the PA product. In your scenario I would ask why you want a 113? A rig sized to fit a 96 V-Lo will probably fit a 126 better anyway. The point is it is a major disservice to tell someone "you'll be ok with a smaller PD because it's actually bigger than they say it is. Bull. It's a 133 sq foot canopy as measured by PD and as compared to the V-Lo 96.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #66 June 23, 2004 I never said you can't land a highly loaded canopy straight in. In fact, I said that any canopy should be able to be landed straight in. I said that over time (landing it straight in every single time), it can take it's toll on your knees and ankles. Think no wind, marginally late flares, planing out high, downwind landings, etc, and after doing this repeatedly, your legs will be in worse shape. Grr... twisting my words. Don't do that."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #67 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs an ironic side note, the only DZ in the area that has banned hook turns is non-USPA. No point to prove -- just saying, hey, that's ironic! Hmm, you will see hooking there every weekend. I don't think it is a very official policy. At least it doesn't seem to be.No, you will not be allowed to get on the plane after that. I doubt we're talking about the same DZ."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StearmanR985 0 #68 June 23, 2004 Oops, my bad...again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #69 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have a X-fire2 at almost 1.8 and it SUCKS to land straight in...Quote Why? Just curious.Higher wingloadings generally yield a faster descent. In a (properly executed) swoop, you're hardly falling at all when you put your feet down. Without one, you're just falling faster when you meet the earth, hence a harder landing. Knees and various parts of the feet generally take the shock and over time start to become very unhappy. I find humor in this! I was demoing a Crossfire 2-89 loaded approx. 2.2+/1 at the Texas State record attempts 2 years ago and basicly had to land straight in because of where I tracked to and 125+ other canopies in the sky with me! No problem, it's not like a 7cell with no lift. I have had to land my Xaos 27-79 2.4+/1 straight in, no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #70 June 23, 2004 QuoteI find humor in this! I was demoing a Crossfire 2-89 loaded approx. 2.2+/1 at the Texas State record attempts 2 years ago and basicly had to land straight in because of where I tracked to and 125+ other canopies in the sky with me! No problem, it's not like a 7cell with no lift. I have had to land my Xaos 27-79 2.4+/1 straight in, no problem.Grr... click here, and stop responding out of context."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #71 June 24, 2004 QuoteI never said you can't land a highly loaded canopy straight in. In fact, I said that any canopy should be able to be landed straight in. I said that over time (landing it straight in every single time), it can take it's toll on your knees and ankles. Think no wind, marginally late flares, planing out high, downwind landings, etc, and after doing this repeatedly, your legs will be in worse shape. Grr....Not taking your words out of context just to point out YOUR OWN words. Flare on time, shut down your canopy and don't land downwind! Learn to fly the canopy, don't let it fly you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ManBird 0 #72 June 24, 2004 Do you think the same person that buys a HP to land straight in is also going to land it perfectly every time? A canopy that is moving faster downwards has a smaller window to pull off a decent flare."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumperconway 0 #73 June 24, 2004 QuoteDo you think the same person that buys a HP to land straight in is also going to land it perfectly every time? A canopy that is moving faster downwards has a smaller window to pull off a decent flare. Agreed, at a little over 300 jumps I bought a new Crossfire 99 loaded 1.8+/1 and landed it straight in for most of the first 150ish jumps before venturing into doing 90 degree fronts. I was amazed at how much more flare it had over the sabers that I had jumped previously. The angle of attack took some getting used to but after a few jumps the landings were tip toe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #74 June 25, 2004 Just my 2 cents.... If you can't land your canopy straight in, then either you should not be flying the canopy or the canopy is a bag of shit. A list of canopies I can land straight in with no problem every time - Springo 160 Stilleto 135 Nitro 108 / 98 / 88 Blade 98 / 88 Rage (paratec ) 97 / 86 Velocity 90 / 96 Icarus VX 99 Vengeance 120 / 107 and the list goes on No prizes for guessing which is the hardest to land straight in Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #75 June 25, 2004 the springo 160? ~chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ManBird 0 #72 June 24, 2004 Do you think the same person that buys a HP to land straight in is also going to land it perfectly every time? A canopy that is moving faster downwards has a smaller window to pull off a decent flare."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #73 June 24, 2004 QuoteDo you think the same person that buys a HP to land straight in is also going to land it perfectly every time? A canopy that is moving faster downwards has a smaller window to pull off a decent flare. Agreed, at a little over 300 jumps I bought a new Crossfire 99 loaded 1.8+/1 and landed it straight in for most of the first 150ish jumps before venturing into doing 90 degree fronts. I was amazed at how much more flare it had over the sabers that I had jumped previously. The angle of attack took some getting used to but after a few jumps the landings were tip toe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #74 June 25, 2004 Just my 2 cents.... If you can't land your canopy straight in, then either you should not be flying the canopy or the canopy is a bag of shit. A list of canopies I can land straight in with no problem every time - Springo 160 Stilleto 135 Nitro 108 / 98 / 88 Blade 98 / 88 Rage (paratec ) 97 / 86 Velocity 90 / 96 Icarus VX 99 Vengeance 120 / 107 and the list goes on No prizes for guessing which is the hardest to land straight in Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #75 June 25, 2004 the springo 160? ~chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
