AggieDave 6 #26 January 2, 2003 There are only a couple canopies out there that have a minimum wingloading, those you can 'underload' all others you can just 'lightly load' and will have virtually no problems except a slow-ass canopy and maybe collapsed end-cells on deployment. If you consider those problems at all. Remember, there is not a single canopy that answers all the world's jump needs, nor is there a single answer that applies to every jumper's canopy needs. (well, except maybe you shouldn't jump one loaded at 100:1 and other obvious things)--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 January 2, 2003 Yes I am taling about how some people think that underloading a canopy is dangerous.....It's not. Overloading is. At a really light wingload, winds become a larger factor. I can only think of one canopy that had minimum wingloads (the NOVA, and I am not going down that path). You can kill yourself under ANY wingload. A higher wingload does make it easier. Being stupid makes it even more so. Ron"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
AggieDave 6 #28 January 2, 2003 According to PD's site, the Velocity and Vengance have min wingloadings, other high performance canopies like the VX and FX have min wingloadings too, once again according to Icarus' website.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #29 January 2, 2003 I've seen a girl jump a FX at a 1.2 loading there are no issues with taking it that light or lower. On canopies with Crossbracing the min loadings tend to be at the proformance line where the benifits of the bracing start to make the canopy better then a non braced canopy. In these cases it seems the manufactors are trying to keep the consumer from spending money on something that will not help them and a cheaper product would be better. Back to the original issue... take it slow, downsize at your leasure and make sure you can pass the BillVon tests on each size and feel good on it before you go on smaller. It took me 280 jumps on my second canopy to go smaller and I've still got that canopy to go back to if I want to for any reason.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #30 January 2, 2003 QuoteI've seen a girl jump a FX at a 1.2 loading there are no issues with taking it that light or lower Thats different, though, a girl jumping a canopy at 1.2 is much different then a guy jumping a canopy at 1.2, due to the sizes of the canopies involved, line length, etc. Although, yes, with the crossbracing. I've had no experience with airlocks, at a light loading, does it effect how the canopy inflates and the internal pressure of the airlocks?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 January 2, 2003 Velocity yes....And to be honest I was suprised. I think PhreeZone hit it on the head about it being a performace issue, not a safety issue. But the Vengence did not have a Minumum, only Varies With Landing Conditions.....And even the Specter said that...I think all of them say that..... Any way ever seen a 120# under a Velocity 120???? I never have. And since I am fat, and they don't make a 190, I guess I'll never know how it would fly. Any way....its a mute point. I would rather have someone underloaded than overloaded. Ron"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
rhino 0 #32 January 2, 2003 It can be dangerous.. Less penetration. Less maneuverability.. I don't feel half as safe or under control flying a falcon220 as I do a Crossfire2, 97. The Crossfire "FOR ME" is MUCH easier to land. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #33 January 2, 2003 QuoteSure underloading a canopy prevents you from jumping in anything over a moderate breeze, but other then that I've been under canopies just last year at a .65 loading on 13k clear and pulls and never had an issue. I agree Phree... Anymore than a slight wind and you can be in deep doo doo... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #34 January 2, 2003 depends on the canopy. some canopies when underloaded can not be properly controlled and are increasingly prone to winds and turbulence. many underloaded canopies will have either very delayed response times to control inputs or even no appreciable reaction to control inputs. i have had two friends join the titanium club from grossly underloaded student canopies. when you load a canopy at its minimum rec. wing load it will be quite slow and docile, underloading it will not appreciably further reduce its speed, it will only hinder its reaction to control input. why was i taught to fly @ .86 # where as my girl friend was taught at .46#. this is wrong and resulted in a serious injury. follow manufacturer guidelines for min and max. sincerely, dan<><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #35 January 2, 2003 I know this is slightly off the main subject, but I wanted to comment on under loading high performance canopies. Some of these canopies have 60 plus % of the nose formed, I personally feel that with that much on the nose formed the canopy need a certain amount of internal pressurization to keep the nose from collapsing. I feel this is why some of these canopies have a minimum wing loading (of coarse there are probably other reasons for the minimum). This is just my opinion. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 January 2, 2003 I had a student Manta loaded at .8 collapse on me on final about 15' off the ground on AFF. No wind day and just as I started to flare a gust from behind deflated the cells. Landed on my ass and though I broke my tail bone. Instructor was standing right where I was about to land and said the canopy just stopped flying and dropped me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #37 January 2, 2003 Well I think given just the right circumstances all parachutes can collapse. All I was stating is if 60 plus % of the nose is closed off, pressurizing it is real important. I believe if you under load one of these kind of canopies you would be increasing the risk factor of the nose collapsing (but once again this is just my opinion). Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #38 January 2, 2003 >It can be dangerous.. Less penetration. Less maneuverability.. Penetration is indeed an issue if winds are high. Of course, that has more to do with when someone decides to jump than any inherent safety of the canopy. Larger canopies are not less manueverable. I have never had any difficulty making a manta go exactly where I wanted it to go, and I jumped them quite a bit around the 1000 jump mark (I didn't have a spare rig and had to make back-to-back loads.) They turn in a smaller space, can turn a greater angle in the flare, and can be landed under a far wider range of approach angles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #39 January 2, 2003 >I had a student Manta loaded at .8 collapse on me on final about 15' off the ground on AFF. Good thing you were flying a Manta at that point and not a Stiletto 120 - you would have broken more than your tailbone. Same thing happened to a friend of mine under his Stiletto 135, and he was lucky to escape with a compound tib/fib. He was out for about 9 months. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #40 January 3, 2003 >if the loading on the 150 is close to or over 1:1 you'll need the 2 > stage flare to have soft landings. At 1:1, you better not be relying on things like "the 2 stage flare." You should be able to fly the canopy through the flare, rather than just putting your hands in two positions and hoping that it flares. The 2-stage flare is one of those pieces of advice like the old 45-degree angle thing for exit separation or using your hands like little rudders to make a turn - they may work by accident, but they're not the right way to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #41 January 3, 2003 Problem is at low wing loadings, sometimes it flares and sometimes it just keeps doing what it wants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #42 January 3, 2003 >Problem is at low wing loadings, sometimes it flares and sometimes it >just keeps doing what it wants. "Just keeps doing what it wants?" Hmm. I've jumped canopies from Mojo 240's to Mantas to F111 520's loaded as low as .6 to 1, and I've never had a canopy that 'just did what it wants' rather than what I told it to do (outside a few mals, that is.) I think the reason many people think this is that they jump big canopies when they aren't good at canopy control, and thus equate large canopies with difficulty in control. I've seen some very good canopy control from people under tiny canopies, but most of them can't hold a candle to Cheryl Stearns under a huge F111 7 cell accuracy canopy. I think she'd be amused to hear her canopy described as 'doing what it wants.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #43 January 3, 2003 Quotemany people think this is that they jump big canopies when they aren't good at canopy control, and thus equate large canopies with difficulty in control I knew someone like that, she was absolutely sure that the reason she couldn't stand up a landing was due to the large F111 canopy that she jumped. She bought a smaller ZP canopy and was able to stand them up so she's convinced that was the solution. What was the real problem? She was flairing waaay to late and punching the toggles, the ZP responds differently to that then the F111 did (duh) and she's able to produce enough lift to stand up most of her landings. I hope she's fixed that problem, haven't seen her jump since right after she got that new Hornet...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #44 January 3, 2003 There was a Fatality this year where a guy with a Xaos 68 at a 2.1 to 1. in VA. had this highly wingloaded canopy collapse. Description: At about 50', this jumper executed a small turn into the wind, whish was blowing at 10mph, with gusts to 16mph. At this point, one side of his canopy collapsed -- the canopy then went into line twists and started to spin. The canopy was almost completely collapsed when he impacted the paved taxiway shortly thereafter. He was jumping a Xoas21 68 ft^2, loaded at approximately 2.1 lb/ft^2. So any wing can re-pack itself. And Rhino....just because its easier for you to land a higher loaded canopy....I am betting it is more a problem with the pilot, not the canopy....You like, and maybe that style of flying fits you, but to say that a low wingloaded canopy is "unstable" or hard to control is wrong.... I know tons of people that can hit a 3 cm (about the size of a quarter) target under big canopies....I bet there are very few that can do that under a Velocity. It is an issue of talent and skill, not wing.... Ron"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
rhino 0 #45 January 3, 2003 In your opinion it is wrong.. I HAVE HAD A FALCON220 "Although I stood all the landings up" Not respond to a flare. In hot, muggy Texas air. I have seen other canopy pilots do the same thing under similar canopies. I've seen FULL FLARES where the canopy just kept doing it's thing. The gentleman in VA hit some pretty extreme rotors. QuoteYou like, and maybe that style of flying fits you, but to say that a low wingloaded canopy is "unstable" or hard to control is wrong.... In your opinion.. I assume you have jumped a loaded canopy. Have you ever had a lightly loaded canopy keep sinking through a flare? It happens trust me. I have seen pretty extreme cases dozens of times. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #46 January 3, 2003 Quote"Just keeps doing what it wants?" Hmm. I've jumped canopies from Mojo 240's to Mantas to F111 520's loaded as low as .6 to 1, and I've never had a canopy that 'just did what it wants' rather than what I told it to do (outside a few mals, that is.) I think the reason many people think this is that they jump big canopies when they aren't good at canopy control, and thus equate large canopies with difficulty in control. You are missing my point. In high winds you are screwed under a lightly loaded canopy. During the flare the occasional LAGGED or very slow, sluggish, sometimes even non responsive flare thing happens. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #47 January 3, 2003 >In high winds you are screwed under a lightly loaded canopy In high enough winds that a light canopy is screwed, your just as likely to be screwed under a tiny canopy. Jumping in 20+ mph winds is rarely a good idea no matter what your canopy size. If you are relying on a tiny pocket rocket to allow you to jump in windier conditions then you need to reevaluate what your jumping in. Watching probally the next US accuracy champian train I've learned that any canopy (She jumps a Classic 240 and a Parafoil 252 at about .7) does what its pilot wants it to, it just requires the pilot to know how to fly it properly. Inexperience is often overlooked and blame is instead put on the gear, when the pilot might not be responding to the conditions the way the canopy needs to be flown.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #48 January 3, 2003 QuoteIn high enough winds that a light canopy is screwed, your just as likly to be screwed under a tiny canopy. I won't be backing up under a smaller canopy.. I am done in here.. We can argue all day but my point stands. Have fun debating what you all know is true. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 January 3, 2003 Yeah, I have almost 1000 jumps on a light loaded canopies Raven II, Sharpchutters, and Startrac I's. ALL under 1 to 1 (more like .75 to 1) Around 1500 jumps on everything from Extreme 69's to Stiletto 120's. (from 2.6 to 1, to 1.5 to 1). Both types of canopies fly just like they are designed to fly. You can't really swoop a StarTrac, and you probley can't stomp a good score with a Velocity 96. But that does not make a large (light loaded) canopy unsafe. It is statments like this that get people hurt. "You need to really load a canopy to be safe"... And they are wrong. Just because you could not fly a canopy at a light wingload means just that...YOU could not fly it. There is nothing wrong with the wing...its the pilot. Ron"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
Reed78 0 #50 January 4, 2003 Hey I went from a 190 to a 150 with no problems. No one at my dz had a 170. When you first jump the 150 make sure there is some wind though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
