FrogNog

Some of the suggested formula data in prior posts would indicate a 150 loaded at 1.3lb/sf "should" not be jumped by someone with less than 400 jumps experience - one hundred jumps for each .1 pound per square feet over 1:1, plus an extra one hundred jumps for the canopy being a 150. (Actually, I can't recall if the "short lines penalty" applies to a 150 sf canopy or canopies below 150 sf.) As to whether you are taking a chance, we are all taking chances. What could most people here say about whether your equipment and your skills represent "too much" of a risk? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

What canopies have you been renting? Have you talked to any of your instructors about what canopies they might recommend you buy when you get your own gear? One tip I have for being happy with a first canopy for 100 jumps or more is to buy used. The lower sticker price helps with the happiness down the road because you won't be as wedded to it. With 50 jumps experience, it can be really tough to know what you'll feel like in another 100 jumps. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I was scared of heights, so I started static line two years ago. I think half my jumps were failed 15 second delays. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

In theory the tension on the "white loop" that goes around the cutaway cable should be 1/200th of the tension on that riser, in an original-size ring system. Systems with mini rings will theoretically present much more white loop tension than "regular" size ring systems - the Jumpshack doc below says 6.6 times as much tension (i.e. only a 1/30th lever). The Aerodyne MiniForce system may theoretically present less white loop tension than a mini (round) ring system; I don't know and don't have their technical info at hand. Some amount of basic 3-ring lever technology is described here: http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=3RING&SortBy=DATE_D. Searching the forum was icky because everyone moved their old docs. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

That's my answer right there. If the skyhook works properly, one technique might be superior. And if it doesn't work properly and the jumper was counting on it doing so... -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I use barz. Good for jetskiing too. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

What size is your Hornet? If it's large enough for me and you have another canopy you can jump in the meantime, I'd be willing to try my hand at it. I'd offer a temporary trade, but if your Hornet really is a meanie, I'm afraid you wouldn't trade back. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I would say that was a fine test for force generated by accelerating the mass of the handle (and net force generated by accelerating the mass of the ripcord). But I also agree that wind testing was not accomplished and may be very important. So I suggest off to the wind tunnel with a rig. (I'd remove the parachutes, though.

What kind of a rigger's answer is that? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

In zero wind, upwind, or downwind? With what pull altitude? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I wish I had bought mine used to save a few bucks, but I'm glad I bought a Hornet (190) regardless. Out of a couple hundred terminal openings I've only had a couple hard ones. I turned my brain on and started putting my (stock) slider hard against the grommets and now it's always "medium". Not uncomfortable and not snivelly. (Except when I get low. Then it snivels. ) The opening heading on mine is like a wheel of fortune. 90 degrees is most common, but sometimes it's on-heading or 180, an equal direction turner. The turn is always right at inflation time (the final opening phase). The things I would fault in my Hornet are the flare power (good, but not excellent) and front riserability (with as much brake line lengthening as I could get and still land the canopy in no wind, it still bucked quite a bit). I don't fault the off-heading openings because they're just part of the ride, nothing worse. Everything else about it is to love. I got mine with zero jumps on it and packed it almost without trouble right from the start, because it's made from a less slippery type of ZP. Mine has colored line attachment points which is helpful for a new packer. And it is a great flier in the "not a rocket" canopy category. I personally think the Sabre2 is a similar, superior-flying canopy but it shows in the price tag. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

That's how "my friend" used to transport his Spiderco Delica pocketknife on planes: put a wad of money in the pocket clip and put it in the basket. Things changed in 2001, of course. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

What is your wingloading? How many jumps are reported on the lines currently on the canopy? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

* get to 500 jumps without breaking another bone skydiving. * do a night jump * do more RW jumps to have more fun in freefall and not be as nervous about it. (Adding other people to my skydives tends to make me sweat in the plane because now I have to not screw up my jump, but theirs as well. No, fear is not always rational.) * edited to add: lose weight so I can be at 1.2:1 on a 170 so I can jump my 100-jump crispy Sabre2. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I think they should be treated like airmen. (One set of rules.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Aren't you worried about stability problems with longer delays? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. I know people who have hit the h. s. on King Airs and Otters (only to the point of removing some paint with their head and aching a little). What I mean to say is that how high the horizontal stabilizer appears when the plane is on the ground is not the only factor. How high the stabilizer is compared to the door when the plane is on jump run can be affected by more than this. So what I said was not that people don't whack low stabilizers. I said that I think it's possible to make a stabilizer people won't whack without necessarily elevating it a long way. But I'll have a look at King Airs and Otters (with which I am relatively unfamiliar) to see what you're talking about. A good data point. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I think on a jump plane a tail people won't whack, jam, or tear off is highly desirable, but I'm not convinced the horizontal stabilizer has to be really high up to make that happen. There are other ways but unfortunately flight-testing them is expensive, no matter what the purpose of the plane. I'd like to see a jump plane with an asymmetrical tail and with flight characteristics optimized for takeoff, landing, and jump run. (I understand asymmetric planes have historically had a tendency to act differently during different flight modes.) Meanwhile I'll just keep jumping what we have and I'll keep my closing loop new and tight. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Tracking doesn't start immediately after exit. It takes a bit of time to get airspeed to get lift/force, and then it takes a while for the lift/force to accelerate your heavy butt, and then it takes a while for the increasing velocity of your butt to translate into distance. The canopy has a couple hundred square feet of nylon so it does a much better job of flying in just a few seconds time than a human can. (Plus it gets the unfair advantage of starting with as much or more airspeed than it needs to fly optimally.) Unfortunately if the human was trying to fly his body away from the rock, and the canopy decides to go the other way on opening and fly toward the rock, the canopy can probably get back faster. Now, I have no BASE jumps and I don't expect to soon. But that's not because I don't like BASE, it's because I know I'm not good enough. And that's more knowledge about BASE than I used to have. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I would have pulled higher, for starters.

Since when is speed skiing the world's fastest non-motorized sport? And do they really go faster than a belly-flying skydiver? (Doesn't sound impossible, but that's pretty fast.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I had heard that in high diving, sooner or later everyone hits the platform at least once, and then they have to get over it and get on with things and then it's business as usual. Did that ever happen to you, or to a high diver you knew? If so, why? I think of exits like throwing a ball. With practice you can get good at throwing it where you want. But sometimes, something happens and the ball slips or sticks and it flings in the wrong direction. I suppose the same thing could happen on an exit - loose rock (that maybe looked really solid before) or distracting bird or noise or trivial wind gust or view (in the "Down and Out" post the book quotes Jean Boenish looking down too long / at the wrong time and almost getting into trouble for it). -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I don't mean to insult PAC, because I love that they are catering to skydiving at the factory, but it is my personal, non-aerospace-engineering opinion that the PAC 750 XL is a variant on an agricultural plane (the Cresco) that has been tweaked and fitted with (important) add-ons to make it ready to use for skydiving when it rolls out of the factory - it is not a plane that was designed specifically for skydiving from the very start. On a separate note, does your understanding of aerodynamics suggest that a high horizontal stabilizer is better or worse for maintaining good control at low airspeed when the CG trends toward the door? And with engineering issues, is this kind of a tail more expensive, heavier, more difficult to inspect, or prone to more failures of any kind? (Personally I have no idea.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Are you asking why it appears BASE jumps kill people sometimes? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

My opinion would be to wait until you are closer to the end of your student training and at that point ask your instructors what they think. Meanwhile check out other peoples' gear to get an idea of what is out there. There's almost a mountain of info to try and figure out one piece at a time about what canopies are available and what they're like, but working away at that knowledge mountain can help you make your own decision in the end. I don't know anything about the Turbo Z canopy or the Swift Plus (other than that one worked for me once), so I'd have to search the gear forums to learn peoples' opinions on them, I suppose. -=-=-=-=- Pull.