EvilLurker

I've got a Bev suit with less than 30 jumps on it I'll sell for $100 + shipping cost to anyone it will fit. I'm 5' 9" and 150 lbs. Send me a PM if you're interested. It's Navy/Black with gold grips. Matching Infinity container with a PD-160R if you're really rolling in cash. (I'll take $2200 for the pair).

I do too, it's the ride to altitude part that gets old (like my knees). I like the spotting and being more involved in the jump run you get with the Cessna "experience".

Hs to be the Super Otter for now, but I think I'd go with a Skyvan if I could find one around here. That looks like real fun.

My opinion is get your "B" and then get your night jumps for your "D" when the opportunity presents itself. If your DZ has a regular schedule of night jumps, that may not be a factor for you. For me, it was a big factor, and I'm glad I did it that way.

Hmmmmm. I'm thinking if you're going to be using it "for a few years", the extra price of buying a new rig might be okay, since it will fit you better than what you'll likely find used. If I were in your shoes, I'd wait until I had enough jumps to downsize to something reasonable, then buy the container to fit that size canopy max. while having the option to fit the next-smaller canopy (say 190-170 for example, not knowing your weight). You could pull that off okay, I did. On the other hand, if you buy a rig now that holds a 230 main and end up wanting to downsize to a 150 in a year, you're going to be out a lot of cash you could have saved by going used/new. Your timing of the purchase is important, if you get what I mean.

No, I have one, but can't ever hear it until I'm under canopy. I also had a Alti 2 that was known to be functional until the first time it stuck at 6k and my eyes said 3500. Thank God that wasn't on a night jump.

Sure, sorry about that. I'm still very much of the opinion that a very lightly loaded canopy can exhibit some nasty and dangerous characteristics that make it more dangerous than a canopy that is loaded within the design parameters. Ron disagrees. Make your own opinion, folks.

Guess what the "act" part of this is, Ron. Why would you chop a canopy that doesn't represent a danger? You never did explain why a ram air canopy doesn't maintain its shape and fly normally after a cutaway. It is, after all, still loaded, correct? Often times you can make very valid observations by studying the extreme limits of a scenario.

Stuck slider or end-cell closures are usually correctable. If they are not correctable by 2,500 feet and you don't feel that the canopy is fully controllable, it's time to initiate your EPs (according to the SIM). Line twists are a "routine opening problem", too. Something "routine" can be dangerous if it's allowed to progress and become the first link in a chain of events. I flew powered parachutes quite a bit, and the one thing you wait for before applying takeoff power is fully inflated end cells. Why do you think that is?

I've never seen an altimeter give a low reading, but I've seen them stick. I do check my altimeter before leaving the plane, though, to make sure it's not stuck at a lower altitude. I'd say if you have 2 altimeters and one says 8k while the other says 3, you had better be waving off instead of arguing with yourself and second guessing. If it's daytime, you have the "eyeball" option, of course. I guess what you're describing could happen, but I've never heard of it.

At some point, bigger is NOT better. Try jumping that 900 sq. ft. canopy I posted a link to and get back to me on how that experience goes. Wait for a nice windy, turbulant day. You should be fine. Now, that's about the W/L you get putting an 80 pound first-jump student under a Raven 4. Oh, and end-cell closures are not dangerous? Better contact the USPA and enlighten them, because this is from the SIM re. evaluation of end cell closures: Sounds like they recommend chopping a canopy when you can't clear the mal. Hmmmmmm. Sounds dangerous.

I'd agree with that 100%. .6-.8 is perfect for someone to develop canopy control and landing skills, a 100 pounder under a 320 isn't going to be a better situation.

That wasn't the argument, it was an oversized canopy vs. a canopy that was smaller, but still within the jumper's capability to land safely. So, using your logic, someone should switch to a tandem (sized) canopy if they knew they were going to be jumping in high wind/turbulant conditions? Do you? Having closed end cells IS more dangerous than not having them, because it inhibits the ability to steer the canopy until they are cleared and it's a distraction. Enough turbulance can "take down" any wing. A 747 wing does not respond in the same way to changing airspeed as a ram air canopy, since the leading edge of a 747 wing is sealed and the skin is rigid. It also passes through the turbulant area in a much shorter period of time due to the much higher airspeed. It's not a valid comparison at all. And getting dragged backwards through a barb-wire fence won't hurt as much either, I reckon.

No, not on a night jump there isn't. If they don't agree, the low reading is the correct one.

I'm not all that sure you want that many glow sticks, here's my reasoning: if you put them in your normal line of sight, they tend to degrade your night vision. I'd be careful about putting them on your hands, especially. One on each leg and one on your helmet sounds good, if you want more, maybe on the back of your helmet or legs? An illuminated altimeter, if you can round one up, would be great, but I found I could read mine just fine from the helmet-mounted stick. Red is the best color because your night vision is effected less by red light than any other color. My biggest fear on night jumps is a canopy collision, and to avoid that I want the best night vision I can get, which means avoiding looking at bright lights for about 30 minutes and not having a light source in my field of view while under canopy. If you're doing a two-way, have a plan with your partner about staggering your deployment altitudes and who will land first (high-opener holds some brakes and stays out of the pattern until they spot the low person, low person should be the one with higher W/L). That really reduces the collision factor. Be careful and have fun.

We don't have a clue without knowing how much you weigh. Know what I mean, Vern?

Yes, but try jumping a 500 sq. ft. canopy and they may not. You were just playing at the edge of what I'm convinced would become a dangerous issue. I used to have to pump out end-cell closures, too, on the Raven 4 and Manta as a student. Never saw it again once I went above .7:1 W/L. I still say it's more "dangerous" than not having them, if you're following my logic.

Huh. I read that whole thing and still can't make the connection between a high-performance canopy and the skill of the pilot. A P-51 Mustang would be a high performance aircraft whether Chuck Yeager or Elmer Fudd was in the cockpit. I'd say it's completely dependent on design and wing loading. If the guy flying it is in over his head, it's still got the same "performance" potential.

I'm sure I'll get a load of flak for this one, but I agree that an underloaded canopy is dangerous. (1) You're a lot more likely to end up landing out, going backwards, or both. (2) The canopy is not fully pressurized and is more likely to have inflation problems (end cell closures) and problems with collapsing in turbulance. I consider both of those to be more dangerous than a canopy that's loaded at an appropriate level (depending on the jumper's skill level). And no, I'm not talking about .8:1, more along the lines of .65 or less. If low WL didn't matter, your main canopy would fly after a cutaway, eh? After all, it's loaded at around .02:1 or so. I do believe there's a lower WL limit below which you're MORE likely to get injured vs. a smaller canopy. Who wants to test-jump this 900 sq. ft. Sherpa and prove me wrong? http://www.mmist.ca/Sherpa/specificationsS.htm

Well, I judged it by eye and was ready to flare, decided I could land it without flaring and was right. I was descending vertically in steady winds and figured if I flared I was going to end up landing backwards. Don't try it just because I did, I'm pretty sure my old Triathlon would have caused me some major pain in the same situation.

"One of these days I would like to try landing it with no flare." I did that twice on my PD-210 when I had zero penetration. Stood them both up without taking a step. I was amazed at how low the sink rate was, no wonder it gets me back from those out-of-state spots. It's loaded at .85:1 and in very good condition, though.

I've jumped when the students were on wind hold. There's a big difference between a steady wind and gusty winds, though. If it's gusting, I stay on the ground. If it's a steady wind, I'll jump as long as it's below 20 mph. , but I stay away from the upwind obstacles. There's no shame in grounding yourself and living to jump another day, no matter what anybody says.

I don't think you'll find too many experienced jumpers that are jumping "big" canopies for one reason: once you're loaded below about 1:1 you don't get much penetration into the wind. My backup rig has a PD-210 and I weigh about 180 with gear, and while it will get me back from some LONG spots, if I get myself downwind, I'm in a world of hurt. My 160 doesn't give me near the problem when downwind. On days with more than minor wind, I leave the 210 in the trunk. The 160 is plenty of fun for an old guy like me, and at about 1.2:1 WL it still has some decent capability to get back upwind, so I plan on sticking with that size.

Most likely it closes the power source to a capacitor ahead of time and waits for the "fire" parameter to be satisfied, then connects the capacitor to the cutter. That would make sense, it's similar to a camera strobe system, if so.

That's a valid concern, alright. You couldn't get it off before you landed and got rid of your harness, either.