JohanW

Which is why there is a print of TSA's own document right on top of my rig in my suitcase, where it says that the owner will be present for searching, and I will be paged to be present for that, or it will not be searched (and not be carried). Never had any problems with the rig in my suitcase, though I do tend to stick around until the suitcase has gone through the X-ray machine. Of course, there's a beer time for everything. Johan. I am. I think.

Sorry about the cheeseburgers but hey, wingload is good.

"All skydivers must jump an Automatic Activation System (AAD) of the reserve parachute, installed and maintained according to manufacturer's specifications, except when they jump in Flight Training Campana." Thank you, Google Translate. I suppose that's CRW. Why I would need one for PA or CP more than for CRW, I don't know, but they didn't ask me and I didn't ask them. Maybe Sevilla isn't a member of the Spanish NAA but a USPA affiliate only? (Empuria is USPA but may well be Spanish NAA also.) Or maybe they don't bother enforcing this particular rule for foreign skydivers who don't have to have them under their own rules? Edit: Actually, Empuria waived for a friend of mine who did not have an AAD in his dedicated swoop rig when he was there specifically for a beach boogie. They may have gone outside the rules, the rules may not have existed at that time, and I think he was told he could only swoop the beach, not jump at the regular dropzone as well. Also, yes, he was a foreigner, he was permitted to jump without under his own national rules, he did not know beforehand (all of them found out when he turned up), and first and foremost, it was in another country and a long time ago. More edit: Sevilla may be BPA rather than USPA. Johan. I am. I think.

Sure, distribution of load might definitely be different between different canopies. I do seem to remember though that a Triathlon 175 had rather a higher front riser pressure than a Tri 120. One would suppose *they* have the same trim. And the same suspended load. (Well, give or take a pound or four. Or six.) Johan. I am. I think.

I can think of one thing that may, from a theoretical perspective, have an effect. After you start pulling on a front riser, you accelerate the canopy. Accelerating the canopy means it's not lifting as much, so the front riser pressure diminishes. Cause and effect are pretty much interchangeable at this point, I couldn't say which one is the chicken and which one is the egg. But while accelerating, riser pressure diminishes. On smaller canopies, this effect might explain a part of the decreased riser pressure; the initial effort, for however short a period of time, should be the same regardless. It does not feel that way, so I'm guessing this is not the whole story. But it might very well be a part of it. Or I might be talking out my @%% anyway. Kallend or BrianG are welcome to set me straight any time. Or anyone, really. Johan. I am. I think.

I know. I can't explain it from a theoretical angle, but it seems to be true anyway. I definitely can *not* for the life of me pull down on a front riser of a Foil or a Manta. (Both ~280. And the inch that I can doesn't do anything.) It's heavy on 170s. It's lighter on 120s. (Katanas aren't canopies, they're butter. ) That's more of a difference than might have been explained by front riser input having more of an effect on smaller canopies, which could have accounted for a different perception between the respective canopies. Why would loading have any effect? I don't know. But it does. I suspect you know all of this. Smarter people than us will have to jump in here .. Johan. I am. I think.

(Funny, your profile lists a wingload of 1.0) Yes, loading has an effect on the ease with which you can pull on your frontrisers. As you load it higher, it gets harder to pull and keep them down. (Which is weird, from a theoretical standpoint, now that I think about it.) And the design of the canopy is definitely a factor. Your canopy, when flying with you under it, creates lift; in normal, unaccelerated flight exactly as much as your weight. This is distributed between front and rear risers. But not necessarily in equal portions.

From the Birdman website: minimum requirements are a valid national or international D license or equivalent, 500 skydives of which 100 wingsuit jumps Johan. I am. I think.

heyhey...thats just the perverted homicidal maniac in you talking... Good thing I don't have a girlfriend. And I am *not* a perturb .. peev .. pretent .. whatever - I am *not* a homicidal maniac !! Johan. I am. I think.

He knew. Chuck told him. And refused to instruct him. I have a couple of rather unhumble opinions, and this is one of them: Impatient beginners die. Girlfriends die. Stay in this sport long enough, and friends die. And it sucks. Edit: a rather more humble opinion of mine is that FF is not simple, though. I suck at it. Flying a wingsuit is a lot easier, to me. Decent RW is not simple either, though I don't entirely suck at it. Wingsuit RW is not exactly simple, but at least getting separation is easier.

What? Come to Germany, (if possible). You get paid €25 for each donation. Not in it for the money, that's the entire point I'm trying to make. Johan. I am. I think.

That would be this thread. Johan. I am. I think.

So, what's mutual about the dislike then? And actually, no, I don't know the behaviour you're talking about. Maybe you're cute? Johan. I am. I think.

No it's not. Johan. I am. I think.

I take them at their word. Then I start judging their behaviour in the air. Most cases, I *already* know their behaviour in the air. But I have never sold a high performance canopy to an unknown jumper yet. Especially when mailing it out, I should hope I get a lot more careful with checking their background. It never ceases to amaze me when people do not consider a Spectre 150 a high performance canopy BTW. Johan. I am. I think.

Why not? The inner diamond scales with the outer one. (For the math obsessed, define negative ratio percentages as entire inner diamonds that have to be completely blotted out by the wingsuiter. For a truly ideal, perfectly flown, very close formation, you might get a value surprisingly close to -100% I think. I like symmetry. Symmetry is good.

Noice! Now try getting it certified .. Johan. I am. I think.

Up to 45 degrees. Especially when flying floaty, near stalling the suit, glide ratio suffers and people fly very head high. Yes, we get vortex lift at best. Frankly, I wish you luck in whatever you are trying to do, because a wingsuit is a very, very complicated object. And it generates rather more turbulence than lift. If you get L/D higher than 3, your computations are grossly optimistic. If you are specifically interested in wingsuits, you might try posting in the the Wingsuit Forum. Bring your asbestos underwear and be prepared to be called Yuri, while at the same time getting in major disagreements with that same Yuri himself. Some people like to crunch numbers, others are very, very bored and bothered with this. Johan. I am. I think.

I have both my hobbies and one more thing right at the bottom of my resume. Skydiving, bridge and having been a blood donor ever since I was 18 (this is Europe - we don't get paid). It's who I am, and I can spin a good story around it. Johan. I am. I think.

Love 'em. Exit altitude anywhere from 2200 to 13000 .. great opportunity to do some recreational CRW as well.

When I look at the skewed formation example and rotate it a little, it's a perfectly acceptable formation. In real life, skew is probably not much of a problem because people tend to line up directly behind the flyer in front of them. We may have to disregard skew altogether. Fitting a grid over a formation does not take it into account anyway, because you can rotate the grid at will; the grid does not care which way the formation is flying. Johan. I am. I think.

How about fitting a diamond grid over the formation and then requiring all flyers touching a diamond cell half the size of a grid cell? Does not require computation, disallows crooking, does not suffer Yuri scatter (or you might need less than half the size, Hell, have them touch the centre point). If you want the perfectness of the formation as a number, calculate the relative size of the smallest diamond everyone is touching, or require touching one half the size and then calculate RMS distance from the center. Johan. I am. I think.

When flying, we aim for straight lines. This nicely reflects that. Why not require *all* of these at the same time? Additionally, require lines to be parallel, I think. And then something for even spacing .. (eventually arriving at a grid. ) Johan. I am. I think.

I used to do crystallographic calculations on a 80386 machine running MS DOS in 640k of memory, with 8000 points to analyze, in less than a minute. Sometimes I'm glad to be proven wrong. Indeed, 640k should be enough for anyone.

And, from the wide weird web, a great classical example of crooking. Johan. I am. I think.