Observations from a newbie (long)

[The111 1]

I've been pretty conservative with canopy flight since I started jumping, for a guy my age at least. Spectre 170 @1.1 for 500 jumps with only straight in landings. Now I have a Pilot 132 @1.5.

I've heard a lot of people talk about swooping enough that I already have certain conceptions in my mind. I've heard older swoopers explain the fallacy in the "you need extra (induced) speed to land a canopy at xx WL" idea, responding that *any* canopy can be landed straight in with no extra induced speed. I always thought that made sense.

Well this weekend I started experimenting with inducing speed on my Pilot, in a very basic way - double fronts. I'm sure to the naked eye it looked no different than my previous straight in landings (I even saw video, and it doesn't), but it felt noticeably different to me.

1) Fun
2) Faster, further (not much, I'm sure, but I could feel a difference)
3) Much less flare needed (almost none it felt like), much more power available
4) And the big shocker - forward speed brought to almost a standstill before touching down (no wind)

I've got probably 70 straight-in landings on this canopy almost all in no wind conditions, and had to surf, run a little at the end of all of them. It always seemed to set my feet down a second or two too soon, with not enough power left to keep the weight off of them. I'm not saying it's not possible to come to a stop before touchdown in no wind with a straight-in landing, just that I wasn't pulling it off.

So on my very first try with the double fronts (and several after it), in the same wind conditions, it surprised me very much that I was touching down without having to run it out at all. I expected a lot more lift to be available to me due to the extra speed I'd have, but was NOT expecting better brakes. It almost seemed counterintuitive to say that I can stop better because I'm going faster. And now I feel like there's some truth to the newbie logic "you have to swoop it to land it right"... not necessarily in those exact terms, but in the fact that you do gain a level of control with extra speed. Obviously there's a world of difference between what I'm doing and an extreme HP landing, and the pro swoopers certainly don't arrest all forward speed before touchdown when they give it their all.

Still, is there any validity to my observation? I don't think it was imagined.

All over-analysis aside, I had a lot of fun and was tempted to jump right into 90 degree approaches but figured I'll keep this up for a couple weekends or so and then move onto slow 45's, just to stay conservative.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

I've heard a lot of people talk about swooping enough that I already have certain conceptions in my mind. I've heard older swoopers explain the fallacy in the "you need extra (induced) speed to land a canopy at xx WL" idea, responding that *any* canopy can be landed straight in with no extra induced speed. I always thought that made sense.

Every canopy is designed for a performance/WL envelope.

Induced speed requirement is coming with some overload.

Quote

All over-analysis aside, I had a lot of fun and was tempted to jump right into 90 degree approaches but figured I'll keep this up for a couple weekends or so and then move onto slow 45's, just to stay conservative.

I fly a Pilot150 under similar WL. I can not feel any significant speed increase with a simple slow 90 degrees front riser turn.

[yardhippie 0]

my .02.

I have around 600 jumps on an elliptical loaded at 1.8. Some braked approaches, some straight in. many MANY 270s, even a couple 360s.
typically the only time I had to run out landings was on no wind days or downwinding.

Ive got about 20 jumps on a velo loaded at 2.1 so I am by no means an expert, but that thing flies awsome in brakes and full flight. I had a straight in approach last weekend and landed and only had to take a step or two with absolutely no wind.

If your running it out, have a more advanced pilot check out how you flare, you might be able to better use a touch of power just a tad earlier to help those ones your have to run out.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[The111 1]

Quote

I have around 600 jumps on an elliptical loaded at 1.8.

If your profile is accurate, I'll bet you got a lot of shit early on.

Quote

If your running it out, have a more advanced pilot check out how you flare, you might be able to better use a touch of power just a tad earlier to help those ones your have to run out.

Hmm, now that I think about it, it's actually very possible I'm flaring too late on my straight in approaches. I sort of intentionally started the flare extra early on my double front approach just to be conservative. Maybe that's responsible for the difference I noticed. Thanks.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[marks 0]

Quote

If your profile is accurate, I'll bet you got a lot of shit early on.

not really, because he is doing it the right way with supervision. and he listens to what his mentor is telling him.

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

Quote

If your profile is accurate, I'll bet you got a lot of shit early on.

not really, because he is doing it the right way with supervision. and he listens to what his mentor is telling him.

actually in the beginning many jumps ago. I WAS that guy. I did get told to listen, and failed to do so. and then I hurt myself.

from that I learned a lot. I found a friend that has a lot of good advice and a lot of experience to back it up. Now I listen very closely to what he has to say. And I do my best to respect the wing thats above my head.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I've heard older swoopers explain the fallacy in the "you need extra (induced) speed to land a canopy at xx WL" idea, responding that *any* canopy can be landed straight in with no extra induced speed.

Right.

Quote

3) Much less flare needed (almost none it felt like), much more power available

For a given control input, you'll get more response at a higher airspeed.

Quote

4) And the big shocker - forward speed brought to almost a standstill before touching down (no wind)

You have the potential to set down with the same forward and vertical speed whether you started at full flight, with some induced speed, or reasonable braked flight where the limit of "reasonable" varies with canopy and wingloading.

However the control input options availble to get there vary depending on your starting speed. While you found this easier to do with some induced forward speed it's still possible from a full-flight or braked approach.

Quote

So on my very first try with the double fronts (and several after it), in the same wind conditions, it surprised me very much that I was touching down without having to run it out at all. I expected a lot more lift to be available to me due to the extra speed I'd have, but was NOT expecting better brakes. It almost seemed counterintuitive to say that I can stop better because I'm going faster.

The ideal landing under a modern ZP canopy involves flying it so that your feet would be below ground level, maintaining that altitude as it looses energy, and finishing the flare with sharper input that causes the canopy to pitch behind you such that it's stopping you and lifting you back to the ground level.

Waiting about X seconds before doing this with induced speed means less input is needed than if you waited your normal X seconds from a full-flight approach. From experience, you probably have an intuitive feel for "X" seconds from a full-flight approach.

On a full flight approach staying planed out for less time and applying the same input, or being more agressive on the toggles after surfing for similar time will get you the same stopping speed.

Have some one with experience flying canopies and teaching go over your landing on video.

[marks 0]

Quote

The ideal landing under a modern ZP canopy involves flying it so that your feet would be below ground level, maintaining that altitude as it looses energy, and finishing the flare with sharper input that causes the canopy to pitch behind you such that it's stopping you and lifting you back to the ground level

you did pretty well explaining that, I was trying to think of a way to explain it.

[marks 0]

Quote

actually in the beginning many jumps ago. I WAS that guy. I did get told to listen, and failed to do so. and then I hurt myself.

from that I learned a lot. I found a friend that has a lot of good advice and a lot of experience to back it up. Now I listen very closely to what he has to say. And I do my best to respect the wing thats above my head

well I have only observed the second half, and it is nice that you are listening. because you can learn alot that way.

it is amazing how much you can learn, and who is willing to teach you when YOUR willing to listen and learn.

[LearningTOfly 0]

Quote

Quote

The ideal landing under a modern ZP canopy involves flying it so that your feet would be below ground level, maintaining that altitude as it looses energy, and finishing the flare with sharper input that causes the canopy to pitch behind you such that it's stopping you and lifting you back to the ground level

you did pretty well explaining that, I was trying to think of a way to explain it.

I always thought that I was screwing up and having to dig a little... Good to hear this description!

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

I always thought that I was screwing up and having to dig a little...

not to nitpick but, the term "dig" refers to the input required to shorten the radius of a recovery arc. the part of the landing that you're refering to is typically called the "shutdown".

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[MrBrant 0]

Quote

I fly a Pilot150 under similar WL. I can not feel any significant speed increase with a simple slow 90 degrees front riser turn.

I fly a pilot 188 @ 1.4. I havn't made it up to 90's yet (been working on double fronts the last 30ish jumps). But, with only double fronts, I am able to see a very significant increase in speed. (been using the breaks to front-risers thing)


is this normal, or does gravity just love us fat guys?

Perhaps I'll post a clip to SDM.com later today.....

[MrBrant 0]

http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=4220

[dharma1976 0]

yes it is goigjn to increase speed signifigantly as you are increasign your pitch with there for changes the angle of attack of the cnaopy allowing it to fly faster to the ground.

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

I fly a pilot 188 @ 1.4. I havn't made it up to 90's yet (been working on double fronts the last 30ish jumps). But, with only double fronts, I am able to see a very significant increase in speed. (been using the breaks to front-risers thing)

Double fronts are fine for me, but I can not get even the same speed if I do a slow 90 degrees front riser turn only.

I start my 90 degrees approach from breaks, than double front risers and I pull one/left front deeper and turn to the course. That gives quite much speed.

[Pendragon 1]

Hi Matt,

Try 45s next. Double-fronts don't really do much; all that's really happening is you're folding the wing in half spanwise and killing the glide, which then recovers with a small surge not too dissimilar to the effect of releasing from deep brakes. At least with any form of rotation, the canopy becomes displaced from above your head and you swing back underneath it once the canopy begins to plane out (hence the surge of speed). Do a few of those before you migrate to 90s, but do lots of those before going beyond that; you'll find anything over 90 a little disorientating when you start.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Try 45s next. Double-fronts don't really do much; all that's really happening is you're folding the wing in half spanwise and killing the glide, which then recovers with a small surge not too dissimilar to the effect of releasing from deep brakes. At least with any form of rotation, the canopy becomes displaced from above your head and you swing back underneath it once the canopy begins to plane out (hence the surge of speed). Do a few of those before you migrate to 90s, but do lots of those before going beyond that; you'll find anything over 90 a little disorientating when you start.

Pilot has flat trim and positive recovery. It does not dive with a slow 45-90 rotation. Not even as much you can squeeze out from double fronts. From double fronts it recovers and planes out in 3-4 seconds.
I have tried 180 degrees approach in high. It takes 120-140 from the breaked start to plane out. It dives 25-28 m/s and coming out with 0-2m/s sink rate.

[MrBrant 0]

Quote

Hi Matt,

Try 45s next. Double-fronts don't really do much

Although I'm very new myself, I think i have to disagree with you on that.

Check out the clip i posted above ( http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=4220 ).

There is a definite increase in speed.

[nicknitro71 0]

Very nice.

That's how I land BASE tarps when altitude/LZ don't allow for any hook turns: Fly in deepish breaks, then front risers, and flare.

Using the surge of the canopy after releasing the breaks is also used to land tandems.

Anything that increases the available speed on landing is welcome in my world.

Speed = lift = better landings.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Pendragon 1]

I am familiar with the Pilot; I got >350 jumps on my 150 before I sold it, and it's the canopy I learnt to do high-performance landings on.

Double fronts only really increases your sink rate; it doesn't really dive the canopy. Sure, this will speed things up a little.

I could get my 150 (at 1.35 lbs/sqft) to dive on a 90. You're right though, it does have a very short recovery arc, hence my input was really quite low. I did also notice an increase in speed at 45. It doesn't dive much, but there is an effect like you would get coming out of any turn. Besides, 45s are good to get used to putting single front riser input in, even if it doesn't do too much, before moving on. I'm not suggesting that anyone spends a great deal of time

I think that at my W/L, there wasn't much point going above a 180; no appreciable additional dive beyond this point and the front riser pressure got too high.

Be careful measuring height lost up high; you will always underestimate the height lost in the recovery phase. One reason for this is a height gain after the surge, so you're not measuring the maximum height lost when you stare at your Neptune before and after.

I was initiating 180s on that Pilot at around 350ft (if I recall correctly), like you from a depressurised canopy.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

I think that at my W/L, there wasn't much point going above a 180; no appreciable additional dive beyond this point and the front riser pressure got too high.

I have not noticed that. I can do a 180 degrees front riser turn easily, but I think I can not pull my front risers down in recovery phase.

Quote

Be careful measuring height lost up high; you will always underestimate the height lost in the recovery phase.

Up high is between 600m and 900m.

Quote

One reason for this is a height gain after the surge, so you're not measuring the maximum height lost when you stare at your Neptune before and after.

My goal is executing the turn that my canopy is planing out by itself. IMHO that is the optimal way.
It is possible to flatten out earlier, but that a waste of energy nevertheless it can save from crashing into the ground.

[jenkincb00 0]

Quote

...My goal is executing the turn that my canopy is planing out by itself. IMHO that is the optimal way.
It is possible to flatten out earlier, but that a waste of energy...

Brian Germain would disagree with you, and actually so do I.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Brian Germain would disagree with you, and actually so do I.

That is a kindda interesting.

I happen to read his book of canopy piloting.

I have a canopy with positive recovery arc.
So? If I a bit lower about/dig it out, if I a bit higher extend the dive a bit.

[Fast 0]

Man this thread seems to be full of people talking about things they don't really understand. Got to love dz.com.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[The111 1]

Well since I don't know what you're referring to, I guess I have no choice but to discount every post?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com