
apoil
Members-
Content
528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by apoil
-
Call or Email PD today. Demo a reserve. $30 covers the shipping to you, and the inspection when you return it. you hook it up as a main and jump it. I have a PD113 reserve at 1.8 in my container now. I simply wasn't going to do that until I was sure I could land it under normal conditions. I put 5 jumps on a 126 and 5 more on a 113. Its not the softest landing in the world but it is entirely acceptable.
-
I don't really start to know a canopy until 300 or 400 jumps. I downsized after 1100+ on my last canopy and there was still plenty of untapped potential. So, it may still be that you are going to kill yourself. Your words are dangerous. Losing respect after 200+. That's when you should be gaining respect for it. If it isn't scaring you then you aren't flying it hard, which may save be the thing that saves your life.
-
This is because there's two kinds of tracking. 1. Tracking for separation (breakoff) 2. Tracking for proxmity (Tracking dives, TRW if you will) The leader of a tracking dive wont be in his max track because then you would be able to build a formation, no one would be able to catch him. Two ways work really nice. You can get relative, and then one guy will slowly amp it up while the other tries to keep pace. Then you switch roles. Or get on your back, or do over unders, etc. Tracking dives are nice because you learn the subtleties of the tracking position. How to work levels, How to increase forward speed while maintaining levels. If you can hang with the leader, he usually maxes it out at the end. Sometimes he increases forward speed but doesn't increase lift. I've hit the gas when the leader does and floated right up, but he would outdistance me. It's a dynamic body position, and way fun, but big ways probably wont help you with your max track.
-
heavier load does not equal longer swoop. if you look at these canopies, the wing itself is not very thick (top to bottom distance). This is not "chord". It is "airfoil thickness" This serves to reduce drag among other things. You aren't thinking so much as speculating. You are only taking into account a few points when you make this assumption that cross bracing might make lighter wingloadings more forgiving. The Nitron is a very bad example, because in many ways it is one of the most forgiving ellipticals out there. It is designed to have ultra high controllability in it's slow flight modes, and a very very powerful flare. This can get you out of a lot of trouble. The Nitron may well be more forgiving than say, a sabre2 at a given wingloading. But it's hard to say. Anyway, the fact is, that no manufacturers have considered crossbracing as a "Safety feature". I think it would be far too expensive to include cross bracing on lower performing wings. And it is not recommended to take the existing crossbraced wings much lower than 1.6. This is from the manufacutrers who designed and tested them. As an alternative, Brian Germain's airlocks do actually provide some of the same benefits as crossbracing along the leading edge. This is because the load is distributed along the fabric of the airlock. Brian does consider airlocks to be a safety feature and he does recommend them at light and moderate loadings on the Lotus and Samurai.
-
That's just out of control. My downsizing progression was highly conservative, but even I was at 1.8 before 1,000 jumps. They are honestly going to tell someone at 900 jumps that he can't load more than 1.7? There's such a wide range of experience at those jump numbers that it's impossible to nail it down. Some 900 jump folks shouldn't be over 1.4 perhaps, and some are just fine jumping at 2.4. Regardless, the person who shouldn't be jumping the high wingloading at those jump numbers is going to hurt himself just the same at 1.7. That's why these rules always seem to be either not nearly enough (restricting wingloadings only up until 200 jumps or so) or far too much (restricting them for people with the skills and experience to handle them).
-
This I like... Anyone who is killed in the sport should be permanently grounded and stripped of their USPA membership.
-
Sadly, I wish this were true. At under 100 jumps, I was told by someone with 1000 jumps who was just loving his stiletto - "when you get a stiletto you will love it" and "you've got to get a stiletto". I looked at him like he was from mars. Because I knew I'd die if I got one. And I learned that from my friends who were starting out, like me, and actively learning about what kills people in the sport. I also had an experienced guy say things like "you need 1.4 or 1.5 wingloading to get a proper landing from your canopy". He had thousands of jumps, I had maybe 400 and was not comfortable jumping a wingloading like that just yet. He was offering it as advice to people of all levels. Ironically, he had been invited to a dinner, where a young girl was considering buying a canopy that some thought was a little beyond her abilities. It was a spectre loaded at about 1.1 and she was a tiny little thing. It had been hoped that this more experienced individual would have offered some more words of caution. This girl eventually bought that canopy, and died flying it. From a classic low turn maneuver to avoid an obstacle. So I've always said "one of the first survival skills you learn in this sport is who NOT to listen to" and unfortunately, all too many experienced people offer advice that is not appropriate to the skill/experience level of those to whom it is being offered.
-
The crossbracing gives the canopy more rigidity. It does more than just allow it to be loaded higher. At light wingloadings the crossbracing would be at best a wasted 30% increase in cost, or at worst, might actually be harmful, more prone to collapsing, since higher speed is necessary to maintain pressurization. That last is speculation but it is a bad idea to underload a cross braced. At wingloadings greater than 1.6 or so, there is a big difference in the way these canopies fly. They will have roughly the same speed for their wingloading in level flight, but they will dive much harder and be able to pick up much more speed in their long recovery arc. Also when the flare begins they have the illusion of picking up speed, because as they go from a dive to a plane out, they seem to increase the component of the speed that is parallel to the ground. They just don't slow down when you start to flare them, and they keep going and going and going. So it is unquestionably a master's canopy. highly loaded 9cell ellipticals have to be flown more specifically to build up speed, and they will swoop long and far. But after putting in your 500-1000 jumps on one, if you try a crossbraced at the same wingloading, you will see that it's a different animal entirely. So in short, crossbracing is not just some nifty addition to an aggressive design. The crossbracing is part and parcel of that agressive design.
-
you know what? so do I. But I don't think they will significantly impact the number of incidents. Why? Because anyone who would pay close attention to these limits would have probably followed a safer progression in any case. The people who get hurt will probably do so once they have the experience to get hurt. Check this out, from a dropzone I attended recently. Guy shows up, and has never jumped there. He is asking some questions about the Xaos over manifest (this sounds like it was a subconscious way of saying that he knew he was in over his head) The S&TA's were more authoritative, but I just asked him questions (I don't work there). Turns out he has 700 jumps, 400 under a stiletto 135, and he's hooking up a xaos 104 never having jumped a cross braced before (at a dropzone he's never jumped before). I pointed out that this is a downsize of about 4 sizes, that the crossbraced is a very different animal (I myself only tried one twice). And that he's a little bit shy of the general experience level (jump numbers) usually recommended to fly one. He was grateful for the help and advice. The S&TA's called his home dropzone where his name wasn't really recognized and they said that they generally require 1000 jumps before they let people jump a cross braced (a decent rule of thumb, that I'm sure is waivered in cases of highly current, highly talented pilots). Bottom line, this guy wasn't permitted to commit suicide at that dropzone that day. The system, as is, worked. If S&TA's aren't doing this at your home dropzone, then maybe that's where the problem lies. But nothing in these wingloading BSRs would change this situation. In fact the reverse just might occur. With the added burden of policing the younger canopy pilots, people might even pay less attention to the D license holder with unlimited restriction.
-
bungees are prone to even more problems, that's why they are hardly ever used anymore. biggest issue is for a low exit, like an aircraft emergency. It may take too long to accellerate to near terminal where the bungee will inflate.
-
By you, I mean "the WFFC". You are posting under that name. You are speaking for them. You can't just disassociate yourself from what was said by people in your position before. And even though, like I said, I'm inclined to believe you, it's a simple fact: 3 consecutive years with no jet, 5 consecutive years with no Connie. So expecting such aircraft to be in attendence would be setting oneself up for a disappointment.
-
I'm probably the only Blade Pilot in North America. I put 1100+ jumps on a Nitron at 1.8 and now I'm jumping a Blade at 2.1 It's very fast, it can dive really long and hard but due to its short natural recovery arc can almost always be leveled out (stabbing out of course reduces swoop). Powerful, Deep Flare, not quite as much as the Nitron I flew, but at high speeds it's extremely effective. This canopy is not like any other. I'm not a swooping expert, but I do believe that this is as high performance as any non-crossbraced wing out there. I've got about 200 jumps on my Blade so far and I'm only just scratching the surface of what it can do. I highly recommend the Nitro or the Nitron for a mid-performance elliptical at lower loadings, or an intro to high performance one at 1.8 or so. Its real strong suit is the slow flight characteristics. It's a fast canopy but it will just stop in mid air if you put it in deep brakes. Great for handling traffic issues, or for letting just about any idiot on just about any size canopy land before you. I hung out in deep brakes once and matched my descent rate with a STUDENT canopy.
-
The powertool is the metal bar and spectraline "pull up cord" it's not actually "powered" it just gives better leverage. it's also called a "pack boy" in some circles. typically the javelin main pin flap will open up if the main is too small for the container. So using the powertool and an extremely short closing loop could actually contribute to this problem. The loop needs to be tight, but it might not need to be as tight as you are making it. On the other hand too loose is not good at all. Some riggers can put an elastic keeper for the tuck tab. I found this helped a little when I was experiencing that problem. Short of that, a smaller, tighter rig can help, or a container where the pin protection flap closes "up" such as the vector, mirage or voodoo.
-
There are cons. They are a pain in the ass to deal with after landing. If you hate wrestling with your canopy after landing in moderately high winds, because the nose is filling up with air and you can't grab it and collapse it so easily, you will have the same problem with airlocks even in lighter winds. Experienced airlock flyers have ways to deal with it, but getting the air out after landing and while packing can be a pain. not all canopies are made with airlocks because most manufacturers are unconvinced of the benefits versus the increased costs of production. For the most part, canopies don't just suddently collapse in turbulence, and you can get badly hurt under an airlocked canopy in unpredictable wind conditions (John Mathews) I wouldn't fly a Samurai just for the airlocks, I'd fly it because of its overall handling characteristics. The airlocks would then be a bonus if I believed them to be of benefit.
-
That may be true, and I'm inclined to believe it, but you flat out LIED about the Connie in 1998, 1999 and 2000. So regarding these aircraft, the bottom line is, believe it when you've boarded it.
-
Stowing Excess Brakeline on Sun Path (Javelin) No Velcro Toggles
apoil replied to quade's topic in Photography and Video
My new Javelin (March '03) has an elastic strip on the other side of the riser from the toggle. This works extremely well for stowing the exess brakeline as it doesn't have to share space with the tabs on the toggles. It would be an easy mod for a rigger to make to older Jav's. -
At head down speeds one is risking death or serious injury from a premature reserve deployment. I've pulled my soft reserve pad now under some pretty difficult circumstances. 1) A high speed mal 2) A spinning mal (self induced) at about 2500 feet after loosening the cheststrap. The handle was less than stationary and my CYPRES batteries had died that morning. Only choice was to locate it and pull. I was sitting in by 1500 feet. I don't think I would have located or pulled a metal handle any sooner. So I'm pretty comfortable with my choice. Pity that the Finns aren't.
-
Interesting, Bill, because while Law #2 does seem to be validated by evidence, this one, of course, is not. I understand what you mean to say here, and if it will get people to pull higher and safer that's nice. But it's hardly "law". I've had a few really low pulls. I think we all have. They did not, by virtue of their lowness, snivel longer or have any additional likelihood of a malfunction. Any real statistical analysis of pull altitude vs malfunction rate and snivel time will reveal this "law" to be nothing but superstitious hokum. Maybe a better phrasing, that would actually be a law, and still has some punch would be this: A low pull will turn a minor problem into a major one. And the lower you pull the more serious they become.
-
The last Jet at the WFFC was in 2000 The last Connie at the WFFC was in 1997 If you go, expecting one of these aircraft, expect to be disappointed.
-
I believe the cypres manual says that it will not fire below 400 feet.
-
I guess it's nice to have a reputation. The C test, while interesting is not significantly more difficult than the B test. In fact it's a bit easier, once the whole dealing with two balls thing is dealt with. I'm not speaking from personal experience but I did train with the most recent recipient of a C number while he was practicing for it. Interest has waned in these tests for a number of reasons, one is that they are logistically difficult. You have to go to a specific place and jump with a specific person. Originally the A was the qualifier for the space games which was a competition with lots of participation, this made sense, and the B test was a demonstration of further advanced skill level. These days, those that are at the skill level for the B,C or D test are usually well established and on their own and wouldn't benefit significantly from these advanced "degrees" from the First School of Modern Skyflying. They are also quite expensive. For the two ball tests you have to pay two coach fees (one for each ball master and each ball must have a ball master), plus whatever additional "processing" fee. Some people consider the AD tests to really be the ultimate test of freeflying skill, and they were a good concept, but there's a lot more to it now. I'm keen to take the B test because it is quite a recognizable accomplishment, but I doubt I will go for the C or D because it doesn't prove much more than that you are willing to jump through a few more hoops.
-
fair point. Obviously the automobile analogy does not translate so well to parachuting. Although, the smaller canopy has higher airspeed which results in much more power to halt and even reverse the descent speed. It's that forward speed thing that creates all the complex dynamics. An average jumper is more likely to injure or kill himself under a 2.0 wingloading than under a 1.0 wingloading, just as an average driver is more likely to injure or kill himself if he tried to drive with a .12 BAC vs a .06 BAC. Common sense. But AVERAGE jumpers don't jump 2.0 wingloadings. They are either above average in skill or above average in stupidity An injury is more likely in the event of an error, but I've seen injuries pretty fairly distributed across the wingloading spectrum as well as the experience spectrum.
-
His name was Seth Karp. Like most of us I think he deserves more than "A guy at Cross Keys". Jim He also deserves a lot more than saying that he died attempting a rear riser landing because that is not at all what he did. It is not even what was SPECULATED (and ALL we have on that incident is speculation) that he did. What was SPECULATED was that he may have been flying with rear risers not realizing that a toggle had become unstowed, and that when he went for the toggles his canopy went into the hard spiral that he was unable to stop or correct.
-
While you can't change your base wingloading, other than by carrying ballast and dropping it, your effective wingloading can be changed both up and down during flight. When you initiate a turn, causing a pendulum effect, the centrifugal force of your weight, swinging against the lines increases you wingloading - by a factor of 2 or 3 in extreme cases. This is one of the main reasons your canopy builds up so much speed in a high performance turn. Similarly, if you do a maneuver where the lines go slack such as a snap toggle turn, the wingloading will decrease. When you apply brakes suddenly and pendulum swing forward, again, you are decreasing the wingloading on your canopy.
-
mini risers reduce drag and allow the collapsed slider to be stowed. These mods make a difference for high speed canopy flight. Which is it's own sport within our sport. Did it NEED to change? Well, not to make our gear more reliable or safe, but it is an essential innovation that is about far more than fashion.