Calvin19

furthermore, the harnesses that these gliders were tested/designed for use on make riser input awkward. weight shift is far superior as far as the flow of control goes, as well as the efficiency of the glider.

Been flying all kinds. from barely glide-able ski launch sites to 4000' descents in less than 1000' horizontal distance. All on speed flying equipment. yes, I would say that unless you are looking for long parachute like recovery arcs, and terrain following poor glide, then some flights are best reserved for design specific speed gliders If you really like riser diving and slow wing response, skydiving canopies are probably best for you then. depending on the model, speed gliders are very twitchy. ALSO, you have probably been using a standing harness as opposed to a seated harness? if so, your weight shift abilities have been limited by about 80%. I have flown anything from an acro paraglider to a BASE canopy on a stand (BASE parachute) style harness, and the same gliders (including BASE canopies) on seat acro harnesses and it is black and white. I have been completely above a blackjack 260 doing wingovers and attempts at flips. the harness is a big part of the ride.

and don't feel like I am arguing technique here, If the riser control and diving works for you, that's great. I just have tried a few times and never noticed it to work very well. Older Bullets did not have trimmers, only flat A/B risers. Gin Nano's have forward and rear trimmers, a feature I sometimes wish the bullet had. Usually I am putting to much centrifugal load on the glider to even think about using risers, holding speed though high load is good. even though the static load I like to stay at is about 6.5kg/m^2. some pilots like a heavier loading but their glide and LZ possibilities are greatly limited by much more than 8kg/m It's hard to flip a glider with risers.

those are not dive loops, they are handles for the trimmers. [so you can engage trimmers in flight] I suppose they can be used as dive loops, but these gliders do not respond as well to riser input as skydiving canopies. everything can be done with weight shift and brake input as well or better than riser input. it is not a swooping canopy, it is a speed glider. also, remember that those should be used symmetrically. landing with only one trimmer in is not that bad, but it gives the glider a noticeable turn and flare stroke is asymmetric.

I did not look at the date until after I posted, my bad. still though, the original Gin NANO and Ozone Bullet 007 are still very capable foot launching gliders, I have a 007 in my garage. The ground launching myself and a lot of others do is the foot launched equivalent of ski flying, the idea being to fly as fast and as close as possible to the terrain. with superior equipment available I don't see the point in flying skydiving canopies for ground launching. I don't know anything compared to a lot, that is for sure. about 80 of my flights are at my local hill, but the rest are at about 100 different sites, a lot of them never repeated. the 300 does not include ski launches. I also do not count POM Utah for any of those flights. to easy. these gliders were not meant for any riser input at all short of permeant pre-flight trimming for speed or glide. these are paraGLIDERs, not parachutes and are meant for 100% weight shift and slight brake control. I have flown GLX and skydiving originated design gliders and they are TERRIFYING for foot launching. exponentially larger recovery arcs and absolutely no range. even for ski flying they don't really fit.

hahahahahahahaha.... Noob. I have almost 300 ground launches on 8, 10, and 12 meter "gin nano" type canopies. [Ozone Bullet, Nivuik Skate] With the proper skill, these are superior ground launching gliders. I now teach foot launched speed flying with these gliders. skydivers are great students.

at least it had a pilot chute.

sick

nappy lil tailwind ya got goin there eh?

i saw that one. i was 10 feet away on the trampoline. looked, weird. it could have been intentional.

hmm... kinda true. for most, meaning probably about 90% of aircraft out there, that is true. (these being standard configured wing/tail aircraft) modern sailplanes, the most bad ass, effiecient gliders to exist (some guy is building one with the achievable goal of 100/1 GR) still have the same configuration, but are tuned so that all horizontal lifting surfaces produce their share or more of the positive (up) lift to stay aloft, this makes the glider extremely unstable, and several pilots have died tuneing their ships this way. this is also true, only more so, in military fighter/bombers. say the F16, its CG is so far behind the CP point (center of pressure) that it requires a computer to actualy fly it. the pilot is only telling the computer what he/she wants to do, then the computer translates it, and sends it to the surfaces. im no WS expert at all, but from what i see, a wingsuit is what i described, like a glider with all horizontal lifting surfaces producing positive lift. thus, their instability. this is translated to novice aircraft pilots as 'stability'. the farther forward the CG is, the more stable the aircraft is. (a ball in a bowl) as the CG moves back, induced drag is reduced, but the aircraft becomes less stable.

You actually got a tat on(or in the vicinity of) your bollocks? . Kris. no of course not!!!!, but thats where it would go.

I got it tattooed. now i can check it before every jump. I got sick of moment arm calculations. sadly, my 'Roll' Axis tat is X rated.

hell yeah!!! SD550, mint for 180 $ !!!

dammit hank. brush your teeth.

i totaly agree there space. !! but what are your thoughts on opening altitude? if we are talking about the ability to land the canopy running, then yeah, of course it takes longer with a tailwind, but i thought we were talking about the de-acceleration of the jumper for matters of verticle speed.

i seriously doub that a tailgate/slidergate has anything to do with it, if it does, then that helps my case i think.

ok... ghetto, wwarped, i get it now. hmmm... thats a good point, both of you. is the difference noticeable? obviously as people have documented it, it just seems weird to me.

ok, i have no research to support my theory. i will have to test that someday. i just dont understand from a physics standpoint... the canopy MUST be at linestretch at paralel (or close to if teh PC is orbiting) the relative wind of the jumper, it only makes sense that way. are you sure that your results are not skewed by holding back on high-tailwind jumps, and focusing then on high headwind jumps? like you said, opening speeds first function is airspeed, and high wind increases that in sub-term. maybe the headwind/higher relative wind is what your attributing these results to, not air going into the nose cell?

it already was my backup camera, i use a XTI usualy. but this one was nice for backpacking and PG flying, it fits in my sleeve for jumping as well. and the pics fom the camera are not even focused to a point, its just true blur. not matter the distance. il prob just find another one off ebay. thanks. this whole thread was just so i could waist time and figure out what to do.

what i mean is that the canopy is in the position already to start lateral acceleration, and will not have as much adverse inertia to cause lineovers.

it gets complicated to think about, as in sub-term freefall, you are changing speed rapidly, and that has a factor in it. but i think that like you said, its a windsock. the canopy is getting drug out by PC whatever direction the relative wind to the jumper is. so i dont think there is any difference in the amount of air hitting the nose of the canopy. it would be camparable to being head low or head high, thats it. someone said that a headwind makes you open higher, (how so?) are you jumping As in headwind, because that is the only way to prove this. jumping cliffs in a headwind only means that you accelerate in airspeed faster, not a headwind at all as the wind is comeing from beneath you on a cliff. also, i can see how one would think that in a tailwind that a canopy takes longer to start flying if it is on heading opening, the body needs to be accelerated forward to wind speed as well as flying speed. but thats not opening. -SPACE-

obviously, but is it even worth paying to get it checked out? or is sand hopeless for a point and shoot?

so... i got some sand in my Canon S500, it works great, only it does not focus anymore. settings are fine, i took it apart and took sand out, but it still wont focus, should i get it repaired or buy a used one off ebay?

i disagree there, IMHO, the canopy will open the same assuming the person is in freefall. the only thing wind changes is relative body postion. (thus why a xwind causes opening to face into the wind usualy, its just like if your right shoulder low, you usualy get a slight right opening, the same as a right wind) PS- remember, everything causes lineovers. everything. especialy normal , stable, belly down jumps.