Steel

Well you can do that without a wingsuit, so why spend the money for a wingsuit to fall straight down. If you collapse all your wings long enough you will fall straight down but that would not be much fun. Kirk No I mean fall straight down with the most possible drag, to perform that stunt I was thinking of. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

why can't you fall straight down? If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

wait a second.. If you're moving that fast foward then what kind of a weird opening of your canopy will that make for If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

true. I guess I missed that. thanks If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

I have never done a wingsuit jump but recently I found out that you all can get your descent rate down to 3600 feet / minute, well atleast some of you can. Thats only about 40 MPH. If you jump off a 70 foot cliff into water you will hit the water at about this speed. (I have done this feet first). What I am thinking is that if you can jump out at 3k feet over the ocean ( where the water is deep enough) { I say 30 feet should be enough}. If you can stand up just before impact, it seems very survivable. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

========================= that is a valid opinion, even though its different from mine and it answers the question I posed so thanks If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

I'd have to see a reference where it said that everyone hated him because they were jealous. I can't imagine that everyone was jealous. Maybe he was a dick. A successful one, but a dick. He was the best, he knew it and he was not afraid to say it. My trouble is with the fact that it took 55 years for the bodybuilding community to acknowledge it. I think such a lack of objectivity is sickening. I believe that if somebody accomplishes something, its ok to hate him and say all the negative things you want about his personality. But when you try to spin the facts to discredit someone simply because you dislike him, that is another story, one that I find disheartening. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

A few weeks ago I finished reading this book. As I see different events, I thought I should post about it. For those of you who don't know, Sandow is commonly considered the father of bodybuilding. He was born in 1867 and lived to 1924. In the yearly Mr. Olympia contests, (the top competition in bodybuilding,) the 1st place gets a mini sculpture of Eugen Sandow (His real name was actually Friedrich Mueller). Now it sounds like I have talked him up and without any need because in this day and age he is obviously revered as the magnificent Sandow. But the reality is that, it was not always as such. He was hated in his time. He was famous for saying with his German accent in English, "people a come to see me de strongeste man in de weld". The book ofcourse end with his death and the funeral. People who were there said that there were very few amongst them and even amongst the few there was not a tear shed. But eventually when all the jealousy faded, he was revered for who he was, "Sandow the magnificent". I guess the question this leaves is what is preferable to you? Is it better to be the most liked? or is it better to be the best? I will choose the ladder and I do find the to be very often mutally exclusive. This I think is pitty however. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

actually I think all of them have symetrical airfoils but most of them are bi-planes. In anycase apparently we have some experts here, who need to contact some flight schools with their new information. According to them Bernouli's principal is a crock. After all planes can supposedly fly backwards. I guess when the otters move in reverse its through majic that this is accomplished. Not by spinning the props in the opposite direction and that applying Bernouli's principal in the opposite direction. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

For the record: Although I don't land my current canopy on rear risers, I have done this. Actually I did this @ 1.4 wingloading, 1.9, @ 2.4 and even @3.1. I did it before many dissenters here made there first jump, period. But that doesn't change anything about flight characteristics and aerodynamics anyway. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

If the Bernouli principal is the only reason a wing flies, how come planes can fly upside down? Why are they not sucked to the ground? There is a lot more to flight than Bernouli. Very good point actually and can be answered as simply as, why do you think aerobatic planes are usually bi planes? If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

QuoteQuote Ok in case anybody needs this clarification, that is if there are any student pilots here who don't have flight instructors, because its unrealistic to apply this to parachutes. An airplane when banked, if maintaining level flight, (something not normally done with a canopy unless you are carving it) will have its stall speed increased by the squareroot of the inverse cosine of the angle you're banking at. 45 degree bank = radical 2 or 1.44 60 degree bank = 2. 75 degree bank is something like 4, I don't remember now and I don't care to take out the calculator. For those of you who are stuck wondering why a canopy will stall easier with rear risers, I will explain it. Deflecting the tail, that is pulling on the brakes will change you angle of attack/descent slower than pulling on your rear risers. Pulling on your rear risers is more direct. Before somebody jumps on this, I will clear up that its more directly changing the angle of attack, but that does not mean its doing all the same things. When you pull on the rear risers instead you are not creating as much drag so you don't slow down as much. I have had enough here and now must do some work. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

If you have a canopy large enough, it can easily be stalled while its still creating drag and being maintained over your head. You and anybody else who is not understanding needs to do a search on Bernouli's principal and read about it. (I had to learn it for my pilot license thats the only reason I know it.) Then you will understand why you can't possibly make the tail suddenly act as the nose. I don't doubt that you can drag backwards as long as you want. If you have enough square footage you can create enough drag. But the principals of flight which allow an airplane (or a high performance swooping canopy) to fly, are not acting on your canopy in that situation. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

I have never heard of this. But then again, I never had the desire to base jump. Still, I think I know enough about flying to figure it out. If a base canopy can fly backwards then its not really flying, its dragging. In that case backing out is just about redirecting which way the canopy is falling/dragging. Flying is about building pressure on the bottom of a wing. In an airplane you can see the required shape to build this pressure in the spinning prop, which will cause the plane to move foward and then the pressure will be built up in the wings. When there is not enough of this pressure built up in the wings to sustain lift is when it will stall. When you change the angle of attack (or angle of descent), which is determined by its relation to the relative wind, so much that it disrupts the airflow and not allow this pressure to be maintained, it will stall. This goes back to my previous explanation. So if what you're saying is true about the base canopy, its because it not flying (atleast at the point when its backing out), its just creating enough drag to slow your descent to survivability. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

I'm no canopy guru (some respectable canopy guru step in here any time), but high speed stalls on a wing are caused by abrupt attitude changes. As a licensed pilot as you claim to be, you should know this. Why is a canopy any different? WRONG, high speeds stalls are not caused by abrupt manuvers. They are caused by pitching up too high (pulling the yoke back to far). This is equivalent to pulling your toggles down to far. Have you never hooked it low and had to dig out? This is done by stabbing the toggles (or some might call it an abrupt input.) This is something that many don't like to talk about but its very real. When you stab you toggles to dig out, you can only bring them to the point just before your stall point. If you pass it, it will stall. If you pass it moving at a high speed, you will have a high speed stall. If you pass it after you slowed down, you will have a low speed stall. The bottom line is that any particular canopy will always stall, at the same tail deflection. The reason for this is because of the way the parachute flies in the first place, the shape of the wing, Bernouli's principal. The difference of pressure from the bottom of the wing to the top of the wing. For whoever said that a canopy can fly backwards, thats funny. A canopy just like any wing must have a positive true airspeed. If your headwind is more than your true airspeed you may appear to be moving backwards but you really moving foward through the air. (Just the air is moving toward you faster than you are going foward through it.) With an accuracy canopy this would be more common only because the foward speed on an accuracy canopy is so much less, and with toggle input that its easier to have a situation of more headwind than foward speed. When you don't know what your doing, being abrupt with controls it makes it easier to stall. This is like telling somebody that they need to let a clutch out slowly to avoid stalling the car. Its total bogus. Go to any drag race and watch how quickly they are letting out the clutch. Its just that when your going to pop the clutch, you need to know what you doing. This is no different. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Maybe I'm daft, I don't know? And I'm sure someone will come along and say I'm full of it. But a wing (or a canopy in this case) can stall at any attitude and at any airspeed. I could be going a gazillion miles an hour straight at the earth and be in a stall. So unless you're in the habit of not completing your flare and pounding in before you need to, you're stalling your canopy on every successful landing you make. Remember pulling down on your toggles is changing the shape of your wing in much the same way as extending flaps on an airplane. It allows the wing (or canopy) to fly at a slower airspeed. At some point, you will lose enough airspeed where the airflow over the wing (or canopy) is disrupted causing it to stall. We are flying in a very dynamic environment with a dynamic wing. There is no "it's always going to stall here" toggle stroke. What Tim and Chuck are referring to (hopefully I'm not putting words in their mouth) is practicing your stall recognition. It's that seat of the pants feel pilots refer to as they loose their lift, they get that sinking feeling and they are stalling their wing. short answer, no. It will take time to give a detailed explanation and I am about to walk out the door and leave work. SoI won't be typing it out now. But I will very quickly say that your canopy will always stall at the same amount of tail deflection, regardless of your speed. This is why high speed stalls are possible. If not you would always bleed off your airspeed before stalling. I expect that somebody else here can give a more detailed explanation. If not I will later on tonight or sometime tomorrow. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

SOOoooo.... go jump the larger canopy and stall it. See what happens and then you'll have a clue. ==================== I didn't show up at a DZ one day having never jumped and start where I am @ now. I jumped the jumbo canopies too. All my training was on a Manta 288, my first solo jump was on a 230. And right off student status I went to a Robo 185 on which I did perform a full stall. I do know what it feels like. I did it on my sabre 150 that I got after that as well. But as I recall one of my canopy mentors said very clearly when I first jumped my sabre 120, bring it to the stall point so that you know not to surpass that when landing but do not fully stall it to the point of folding it up behind yourself. There is not guarantee that it will recover. THEN... try it on your sub 100. What people miss out on early on, is experimenting with docile canopies first. You have a rediculously small canopy so it's hardly comparable to anything the general public jumps. Heck I've only jumped 3:1 and when I finally do again I'll stall it. I did find the stall point but that's about it. ok if you choose to do so then go ahead and let us know what happens to you. I already know what happened to me. I have no desire to cause another cutaway. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Being a licensed private pilot who has actually performed spins, I can tell you that a canopy may be similar to a fixed, rigid, wing but there are clear differences. If you perform an uncoodinated stall on and airplane and cause it to spin, recovery is a simple as, power out, full opposite rudder, yoke foward and easy it back to recovery. A canopy on the other hand is just not the same. Once it spins and lines twist up, it can very quickly turn into a wild situation. I have been is such a situation. One time with my 62 which at the time was loaded @ 3.4, I decided to get creative with the setting of the brakes. I had a rigger set the eye lower so that my canopy would open in almost full flight. Jumped it like this about 15 times. It was all cool, it was opening slower this way. Then it happened, one time my canopy would not fully inflate. This already tells you something. Its possible that if the breaks are not set deep enough that the canopy won't inflate. But there is more to the story. I was at about 5k so I had plenty of time to try to make this work. I tried to pull my risers apart roughly several times but there was no way it was going to finish opening that way. I waited for more than 10-15 seconds but it just would finish inflating. Then I thought since that won't work, maybe I will try to pump the breaks quickly. I will never forget this because I was stairing right up at my canopy as I did this, hoping this might cause it to fully inflate. Well it didn't. But I will tell you what it did do. It imediately stalled and in less than a half a second, as I let up on the toggles, I saw my canopy shoot up and imediately spin (spin extremely fast). Needless to say the ended up in a cutaway. Now that is my experience. But from what I have seen, I am not the only one. Scott Miller recently was at Skydive Dallas teaching a canopy course. I heard from people in that class that he wanted them to perform a full stall. However for the ones with sub 100 squarefeet canopies, he had the jump student gear to perform this manuver. My understanding is that it was for this same reason. If you fully stall a high perfromance canopy you really don't know what is going to happen next. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Have you gone up and stalled the heck out of your parachute? =================================== This is a bad idea and sometimes it freaks me out when I hear "experts" suggest this. If somebody is loading at 1 to 1 or less, they will probably get away with it. But it will prove nothing. If they are loading at 1.5 to 1 or higher, there is a strong possibility that this will result in a cutaway after it spins up. Approaching a stall is one thing. {noticing that your canopy is starting to stall and at that point imediately releasing just enough brakes to keep it from stalling}. Stalling a canopy loaded @1.5 or higher to the point that you fold it up and have it drop out behind you is just looking for trouble. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

it was funny how the other day on Hannity and Colmes Robert Reich was there. He decided to take a jab at FOX even while being on it himself. Sean put him in his place rather quickly by pointing out that this was a self contradicting statment, since he was on there as he has been many times before, spewing his liberal agenda. See when you put it all together its clear that liberals are liars, nobody could be so blind as to not see it for what it is. Its obviously a goal that they have for some more hidden agenda. Well I don't know if its right to call it hidden after all to me its clear that they simply want to make this a Socialist country one step at a time. But since there are the swing voters that need to hear see many tv ads and hear speaches to make up their choice I guess that agenda that I see so clearly by examining voting records is apparently not as clear to everybody else. If it was there would be no Democrat party as we know it. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

oh it gets better, this is hilarious. The way they are going to get busted only proves that liberals are not all that smart. here is the whole story. [url 'http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/9/203249.shtml'] full story [url] anybody should know that no two typwriters type the same. Doesn't anybody remember Jagged edge? .. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

I am all excited about this just got this email. anybody else heard about it. Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell said Friday that if documents aired by CBS newsman Dan Rather Wednesday night turn out to be forged, as alleged by experts, the presidential race "is over." clicky If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

as was said before you shouldn't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. Last I heard was that TJ was poking fun toting an ancient video of mine. If you gonna talk you need to complete the entire story. If you want to know what a looser/druggie Tree is then do a search, I have pointed that out as well. Lesson to be learned, don't throw punches if you don't want to get slamned. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

oh yeah, i remember him.. wasn't he jumping a 55? some of the worst canopy piloting i've seen someone walk away from... lucky SOB anyone know who that was?? You know when you get these kinds of posts, it put you on the spot. For one thing its truly easy to fire back with major fuck ups that you have wittnessed from top ten canopy pilots but then the reality is your beef is not with them. After all they are not the ones talking crap. So I will try to just mention people who are clearly in the forefront here. JC may be be one undisputable best canopy pilots out there. But when I first got to Perris in 2001, I saw a video of him doing cart-wheels across the perris pond a week before. During that competition he busted his ankle. During practice I saw countless top competitors crash into that pond not to mention the fuck ups during the competition. Recently through instant messages I heard that TJ had dug up a video me going down 3 years & 1000 jumps ago. But he was not immune from smashing into that pond during practice in 2001 either. Kevin Gibson enjoyed writing crap on parachutist about me but he smashed into that pond so badly that he couldn't finish the competition. Andy Anderson had plenty to say about me in the time to come. But we all have seen video of his major screw up in a competition posted here on dz.com. If I recall correctly it was sometime around Feb 2003 that after his landing, the guy on the microphone first words were somebody call 911. We can also remember when Joey Mullins had his mess up that Andy Anderson was here on dz.com doing his part on the damage control. Oh wait back to TJ. I recall the first time I spoke with him about Cani who had started jumping the 46 a year before. His words to describe Cani were and I quote , "He is not a good canopy pilot, many people wonder why he was picked for the 46 project. He might be able to land half decent now, but that is only after plowing in so many times at Elsinore while learning." If you look back at his record back then, he hadn't won any objective competition. His swoops were among the shortest. I would bet that if not for his close jumping relationship with Jim Slaton he would still be known as nothing more than the first guy who jumped the 46 quickly followed by because he only weighs 130 pounds in the first place. I remember talking to the Regie, the windblade company guy. I had just landed and made it through the course and he said to me. Now watch a good approach here comes Cani. I remember on that jump he went vertical which would have equalled a zero score but Regie's response was "his approach was still good." I can name canopy pilots that I have temendous respect for as people (as well as, as top ten competitors for years standing) that I have seen plow in. I have been standing there watching and listening to the excuses made for them imediately. I try my best to be as close to perfect as possible because its my nature. But the reality is that nobody is perfect. Some are just better than others. Another reality is that, to this date I have not seen a critic of mine who has had less fuck ups. And when I say fuck ups, I don't mean landing in the less ideal direction and getting your pants a little dirty. I mean getting carried away on a helicopter and for the first 10 minutes the whole dz standing around you wondering if you will make it to the hospital or walking around limping for months to come. Yes I can name many of these occurences specifically by very outspoken critics of mine but it gets old after a while. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.

my german is really really rusty, so i sent it to a friend in Germany (who also happen to be in a German thrash metal band) and he translated it for me when the album originally came out... edit: of course Mille did say he went with the translation that rhymed the best in english as well whereever possible... actually I will yield to any native German speaker because I am not one. However this translation you posted to me seems totally inaccurate. I will address the entire song. DU = you DU HAST = you have { it sounds similar to du hasst and is perhaps a play on words but its clearly you have} DU HAST MICH = you have me {this is breaking into German grammar its using mich which is the akusativ form of me, means it will translate to an English form like saying to me} DU HAST MICH GEFRAGT = you have me asked { this clears it all up, because gefragt is the present perfect version of the verb fragen, hast gefragt = have asked. Who asked? du or you. To who was it asked? to mich or me. The akusativ form says to me. DU HAST MICH GEFRAGT UND ICH HAB NICHTS GESAGT = you have me asked and I have nothing said, again here you see the present perfect form which is the more common way of expressing the past in German hab (technically habe) gesagt = have said, who said it? Ich or I. WILLST DU BIS DER TOD EUCH SCHEIDET = actually in the last post I translated all this and now I am tired of typing so I will refer back to the previous post. TREU IHR SEIN FUR ALLE TAGE NEIN If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read.