Deimian
-
Content
617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Deimian
-
The most important tip I've had, for every flying position, is relax. If you are too stiff things won't work. I know it is easier said than done, and sometimes the difference between relaxing and letting your limbs flop in the air is subtle, but you'll see what I mean once you relax and things start flowing.
-
Skydiving helmets - What would you like to see?
Deimian replied to tlipiec's topic in Gear and Rigging
Tonfly made it Halfway. It is a sky helmet with an audible pocket (just solo, optima, quattro and protrack II) in the right ear. I was excited when I saw the teaser on FB, but I was expecting more. There isn't a proper cutaway, chincup, left audible pocket or any snag-resistant camera mount. There are sky helmets EN 1077 certified for less than 1/10th of the price (in decathlon, 30€) of the ICE. For sure they aren't as beautiful as the ICE, but paying 360€ for a left audible pocket, a headband cover, an a fancier chinstrap doesn't seem to me like a reason to be satisfied. To me it looks like an overpriced sky helmet or a protective skydiving helmet for basic needs. -
https://www.facebook.com/Icarusworld/videos/1471057502917912/ Looks similar to Fluid Wing's Tesla. "Schumanny" planform, partially closed nose, inflatable stabilizers. Unfortunately it is nothing more than a promotional video, so I have no idea how it compares to Crossfire 2, Crossfire 3, Tesla or Katana. It seems like it has a somewhat long recovery arc, but it is very difficult to say from the video. It also seems like a Tesla contender for most beautiful non-crossbraced wing . I was leaning towards Tesla as my next wing, but without demos in Europe I might give priority to this one if it turns out to be a worthy canopy. Fluid Wings, are you sure you don't want to reconsider having a demo program in Europe? Hit me up if you need help to set it up Interesting times!
-
I would assume that the difference in a canopy as a katana is negligible. Just extremely high performance canopies are offered in sail or hybrid configurations, as far as I know. You don't get Velos, JFX, JVX, Xaos, etc with sail. In other words, if you fly those canopies, but need more performance, you move to more modern designs. If you need more performance in the most modern designs, then you move to sail.
-
My understanding is that it is kind of both. In a normal canopy the lines are attached to loaded ribs. To create a more efficient surface with less deformation between ribs you need to have more ribs. But adding ribs without loading some/most of them won't solve the problem, since there will be deformation anyway. So you have to increase the number of lines (cells), to load some of these new ribs, so the shape is better retained. But more lines mean more drag, so you kind of cancel out that benefit. With crossbraces from a single attachment point you are loading 1 rib and 2 crossbraces. The crossbraces allow therefore to eliminate 2 unloaded ribs. The shape is better retained, but without increasing the number of lines. Does it makes sense?
-
That makes perfect sense. Thank you!
-
Maybe a bit offtopic, but does somebody happen to know how exactly sail ribs change these characteristics? My understanding is that sail fabric is a bit more stiff than standard ZP, which translates to less deformations in the top/bottom skins. But if that is all, I have to admit that I am surprised that it has measurable effects. The speed of these wings should keep them pretty good pressurized, so the top surface should have relatively few wrinkles. And most of these wrinkles will stay there, since the only part that is more stiff is the ribs, not the top/bottom skins.
-
Canopy flight time diffrences
Deimian replied to Sabrekakkonen's topic in General Skydiving Discussions
Nobody will give you a precise answer. Far more important than that is how you flight your canopy. -
I wouldn't say it is a good idea. What if you decide to don't keep jumping? What if you decide that a digital face is what you need? But that is just my opinion. I agree with you. What I meant is that they probably had a talk like this: -"Hey, an instructor can use his altitrack to replay a jump and rehearse with his/her students. That's a different use case than a simple playback." -"That's neat, and then students can even see from the ground the effects of different disciplines in altitude loss." -"Yeah, right! How can we advertise that use case?" -"Let's call it simulator" The term itself is misleading, but it has a purpose. It was simply a mismatch between your expectations and what that purpose is. I would send them an email saying that they should rename it to avoid confusion. Being said that, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the first one that had this problem, your case is not common.
-
You are kind of right, but not completely. It can be used by a teacher as a simulator for students (ie: a teaching tool). It seems you don't even have an AFF instructor at this point, and here is where the problem started, you jumped ahead of yourself a bit, buying something so expensive without even starting to jump. I am not blaming you though, I think that "simulator" is a misleading term. I suggest you go to the DZ and ask somebody to jump it once. That is all you need.
-
I am reading this as: "the box might have different size requirements than other AADs". One thing you might consider is that if it is significantly more bulky, it won't fit in many containers whose reserve tray is already maxed out. I partly agree. Sometimes, a revolutionary design is not backwards compatible. The question is if the benefits in real life are big enough to justify breaking compatibility. Backwards compatibility is a big part of the reason why some companies outperform their competition with inferior designs. Intel's big advantage 15 or 20 years ago was that everything worked with their processors, whereas for newer and more advance designs -from their competitors-, a lot of reengineering was necessary. Most of their competitors are now dead. Backwards compatibility shouldn't be underestimated.
-
The load is applied to the piece of doubled 1000-pound spectra that runs across the mouth of the pin sleeve and is bartacked to the bridle. Thanks for that, very informative. Collins lanyards are a response to the possibility of a premature opening of the reserve if the RSL-side main riser breaks/releases while the non-RSL-side main riser stays attached. The possibility exists for all RSL-equipped rigs, regardless of MARD installation. So how many such malfunctions have occurred recently? The number is not zero, of course, but it should be compared to the number of Collins lanyard-related malfunctions, which is also not zero. It's a matter of which risk you think is greater. Mark That's a good point. But I have no numbers to make an informed analysis of pros vs cons. Besides, and to be honest, I've never heard of a collins lanyard malfunctioning. What are the new malfunction scenarios that the collins lanyard brings? Do you have any numbers to compare pros and cons?
-
Very interesting. It is seem like a cleaner version of RAX. The funny bit is that in a cutaway it seems like most of the pressure from the lanyard is applied to the fabric pocket that holds the pin in place, rather than the pin itself. I guess great care was put in making the pocket stiff and hardened enough. No mention of collins lanyard, and considering that the system can be retrofitted to old containers I guess that is not in their plans. Which is a pity. It looks to me like the best MARD setups out there are the ones from SIFE and SWS. Both pin-based, but with collins lanyard.
-
What I've seen in FB: L&B: ProTrack II Mentions of "Ares II", "Echo" and something else, I don't remember the name. RI: A MARD: https://www.facebook.com/BlueSkiesMag/photos/a.10154179571321922.1073741842.58074541921/10154179571456922/?type=3&theater It seems to be pin-based, but I don't see how the pin gets pulled from the pocket. Cookie: M3 helmet (seems like an entry level open face) Icarus: TX2 tandem canopy SunPath: Aurora wingsuit container (but it was announced before PIA) UPT: "Mutant" harness system. I have no clue what that is, but seems to be some sort of harness for rigid wings (ala Jetman) https://www.facebook.com/BlueSkiesMag/photos/a.10154179571321922.1073741842.58074541921/10154181789141922/?type=3&theater
-
My understanding is that it is something between a katana and a crossfire in terms of recovery arc and steepness. From the videos it also seems "schumannish", which I guess can affect the harness sensitivity. I am really looking forward to see reviews about it and get my hands in one.
-
For counting until 5, sure. But counting until 55 is another thing.
-
I don't think that will help you. While jumping your time perception will be heavily distorted. Also, while jumping, time doesn't matter, altitude does. While on the ground I'd simply close my eyes and rehearse the whole jump, including the counting. Seems more effective to me, but I am no instructor and just a random guy on internet, so take my advice for what is worth.
-
I wouldn't pay attention to that chart. It actually seems dangerously misleading. Petra with 300+ jumps? Really? And who would recommend to a new skydiver designs as old as some of those? Sure, they might be tame enough and/or designed for students, but it is 2017 already, some of these designs are 30 years old, and the chances of finding some of these oldish canopies that are not dangerously ragged out are pretty slim. I have nothing against old gear, but you should know what you are getting, and for that you need to build up a bit of knowledge, which is not the case for a fresh student. Somebody else also recommended a Storm. Make no mistake, the Storm might be a 7 cell, but it is not a canopy for new jumpers. It is pretty steep and you can get hurt easily if you don't know what you are doing.
-
I do find it very useful . I am a bit confused though, somebody else said above that the recovery arc is short and similar to XF2.
-
I would suggest you take a look at these videos. They are from the Australian Parachute Federation, and are very informative. They talk about the different malfunction scenarios. Maybe that will give you some ideas on how to expand the survey to be more detailed and useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTYsjH7DSVA&list=PLHdmFp89rAHBsZwLtEzkZ8wWeRk7GCrTt
-
Different BOC handles result in Premeture openings?
Deimian replied to rrobinn's topic in Gear and Rigging
It is not a stupid question. That is the primary reason for freefly pud handles. If the BOC is in good condition and the rig is freefly friendly it should be ok. But you can ask your rigger to replace your hackey with a freefly pud for extra peace of mind. Some manufacturers also have hackeys with tuck tabs. You might consider that as well. -
Wise? Never. An inflated ego with a Pilot is something I have problems understanding. But don't tell him that or will downsize more aggressively .
-
Using front risers for penetrating winds
Deimian replied to jheadley's topic in Swooping and Canopy Control
My personal rule is that if I need to use front risers to get where I want to (while flying upwind), I'm better off looking for an alternative landing area downwind. Front risers will give you a marginal better wind penetration. Relying on them to barely make it is dangerous. -
In my club (3 DZs in Belgium), passengers have to wear a rig, otherwise they are not allowed on the airplane. The rig is some sort of pilot rig with a single canopy, I suppose round. The restraints are also slightly different. There is an extra loop of webbing (I don't know the type, looks like type 17 but a bit thicker) to route around a harness part and lock with the shackle.
-
You mean this? https://www.google.de/maps/@50.4791297,5.9121259,3a,75y,227.73h,48.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUO_0H-xOTIwAAAGut300BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 I've never jump anywhere in north america, but in this side of the atlantic, all the caravans and grand caravans I've seen have single point restraints like this one. At least that's the case in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany.