JohanW

Also, its size might be measured differently (top skin, bottom skin, projected area), so the actual sizes might not be the same, even if all are quoted as 190. Johan. I am. I think.

Said offences possibly to include not knowing to empty the recycle bin. And the gratuitous use of cameras. Johan. I am. I think.

Yes he does. I won't be calling him a midget in public, but I could throw him. (Hi Deyan! Happy New year!) Johan. I am. I think.

It's the altitude where I decide which parachute I'm going to land. Yes, it depends. On things I know *before* the jump. Johan. I am. I think.

I have no answer for you, sorry. Icarus could have avoided this confusion by publishing "max" (aka certified) and "max recommended" suspended weights. I don't know what the legal status of their max suspended weight as currently published is. 10.3, 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7 are contradicting each other. Test weight should be more than certified weight, they are rather adamant their max exit weight is an absolute limit but the legal limit seems to be 116 kg. But note there is space for a max weight on the warning label. I'd take that as the legal limit, regardless of what's in the manual. I actually expect Icarus to write their own idea of the max susp weight in there, and I actually expect to be wrong on the conservative side of legal that way. Johan. I am. I think.

Actually, I don't think they are. But certified weight/speed is less than test weight/speed. If I read TSO C23d correctly, you can actually flare the canopy for landing to achieve a survivable descent rate. It is legal to jump a reserve that'll pound your unconscious ass into quite a crater. Johan. I am. I think.

Manual is on the website, under support. Other manufacturers might have published an "expert" max weight for different sizes (e.g. PD do); Icarus Canopies calls it "maximum" but the canopy is obviously certified to 116 kg. I don't know what the legal effect is. Johan. I am. I think.

Well whaddayanooooooooo? They don't! Now, there is .. the Firebird Rush 90! Count 'em folks, a whopping NINETY square feet of lifesaving F-111! Pack volume 242 cubic inch, certified to impact fully 95 kg or 209 lbs at a survivable maximum descent rate according to ETSO C23d and, according to the blurb, it has "very good diving characteristics". Yeah, I bet. I might as well land my wingsuit. Firebird Rush 90, manual/website: area 90 ft². Speed/weight max: 150 kts 209 lbs. Max weight (expert): 143 lbs. Johan. I am. I think.

He has a 170@1.2 in his profile. I did the math.

Let me rephrase that to read more like what I intended. "Wingsuiting a Stiletto 135 is not ideal (wingsuiting a Stiletto never is, in any size), but with your (relatively low) wingload and (relatively high) experience, it can be done." My comment on the repacks stands. Sounds fun.

A 1.4 wingload at 240 jumps? You're gonna diiiiiiiieeeeeeeee! Nice one. (But don't f*ck up.) Johan. I am. I think.

Hey! Where's the carbon-f**king-fiber in that?

With your wingload and experience, wingsuiting a Stiletto 135 is not ideal (it never is), but it can be done. You do have access to cheap repacks, right? Not having experience with paragliding, what is a snap roll and what is a roll? A wingsuit will not exactly give you a subterminal opening, so I still doubt deploying a paraglider wing in freefall would be a good idea, frankly. But if it's worth it to you, go for it.

in a perfect aerodynamic world, yes. but it does change. induced drag and lift increase exponentially with speed, but so does parasite drag. When you get to the point of overloading the canopy, you'd notice the change. Barring that, it should be minimally noticeable between adjacent sizes, if at all. I consider flat to be the 10/1 glide I can get out of some of the gliders I fly. of course I'll consider something less for a freefall designed parachute. Now we're getting somewhere. AFAIK, parachutes have glide ratios on the order of 3/1. That means you'll have difficulty finding something to your liking. The Crossfire has the flattest glide I know, but has a long recovery arc. If you are prepared to retrim a Stiletto to glide flatter (possibly to the point of it not having enough drive left - it has the factory trim for a reason), you are likely not going to be satisfied with any skydiving wing. Let's face it, the aspect ratio and ellipticalness (?) can be much higher on a wing that does not have to open in freefall - a skydiving wing is always going to be less efficient than a groundlaunched wing. There is a reason ARs (in skydiving) vary between 2 and 3 or thereabouts. In short, what you want would open in a spin every time. So how were the openings? If they were anywhere near predictable, get the manufacturer to build you one in ZP (and HMA or something lines, and with lots of reinforcing tape, and, and .. before you know it, you'll be on the phone with Brian Germain or John LeBlanc or someone); the openings can be adjusted with a slider, bag, nose &c. but be prepared for the performance hit you are going to take because of increased skin and line drag. Well, get a quote first. It'd be expensive, probably fruitless (Parachutes de France also had a project I believe - never happened either), but if you don't try, you'll never know, will you? Johan. I am. I think.

A Stiletto has a relatively flat trim. Glide angle should not change with wingload. The question in my mind remains, why do you want a flat glide, and what do you consider flat? Johan. I am. I think.

Not speaking for anyone else, but for me: yes, you are. I was thinking "good girl! don't look down!" If more people did that on flaring, we'd (collectively) be having less problems with it. Johan. I am. I think.

A Diablo will turn like a top but has no glide whatsoever. Why would you want glide? Another *fast* turning canopy would be the Vengeance, but it's groundhungry as well. Johan. I am. I think.

In his defence, there is a difference between a 135 loaded 1:1 and a 175 loaded 1:1. This does *not* mean a 175@1.3 is a good idea at under a 100 jumps .. Small girls have different problems than big boys do. Both can make problems for themselves though. Johan. I am. I think.

But would they know a problem if it bit their nose? Seriously, it can be done, but Bo accepts a certain number of reserve rides .. Right tool for the job .. in this case, get a smallish Spectre .. ask Bruno Brokken. Johan. I am. I think.

Oh, and please fill out your profile some. I have no idea if I'm talking to an experienced swooper or some new kid on the block who doesn't really know what he's talking about. No offence. Johan. I am. I think.

I don't know exactly. But higher than that of a 90. I don't know exactly. But how many people can get more out of a 270 than out of a 90, even if doing neither of them to their full potential? Not all that much, really, and it can be managed fairly well in my opinion. To me? Yes. I'm not speaking for anyone else here, just as I expect you not to speak for me. I would not be getting 57 mph out of a 90, probably. 270s are within my comfort zone. The speed of those is within my comfort zone. As long as I'm not breaking any local rules doing them, not endangering anyone else, not scaring anyone, why would you want to limit me to 90s? Are you going to prevent me from crossing streets as well? Getting out of bed in the morning? (Actually ..

Frankly, we disagree. Believe me, I have sympathy for what you're doing and would join the fun in a heartbeat, but I think the video shows there *is* more potential in 270 or 450 degree turns. (Safely, even. That could never be in the video of course, and I would not complain if I were there.) Two thumbs up for having fun while staying within the rules, be they local or BSRs.

Biggest was 72, but answering anyway: a Triathlon. Johan. I am. I think.

Problem with that is people are going to undo their chest strap under canopy, loosen leg straps &c.. General problem with water balloons is you can't really do it in winter. (Not everybody has winter, I know, I know ..) Johan. I am. I think.

I second Krisanne. Snarf. Johan. I am. I think.