RiggerLee

One issue I've seen in stiffeners with a grommet through them is the size of hole punched. If you use a normal... 0A? punch to make the hole it will be too small. If you see the plastic trying to pucker out after you set the grommet that implies that the hole is too small. You have a lot of stress built up in the plastic around the grommet. The grommet flares outwards and expands when you set it. Ok for fabric but a problem with hard plastics. You see the same thing with Polycarbonate or things like that. Setting rivets through it, like making a slide up door. You have to drill the hole in the plastic larger so the rivet will not stress it. So use a slightly larger punch. Like... 1A? I'm too lazy to go down stares and check the numbers on my punches. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And it was ugly. Would you want to be seen landing that canopy? Did you see the colors in that thing. Must have used every scrap of rejected fabric in the shop. All of it left over from the late 80's and 90's. Even the risers were hideous things. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And he's off and running! Quag, you're inspiring a whole new generation of designers. I think this makes two. Before you know it there will be a whole new crop of manufactures cropping up at every drop zone. You'll be buying your canopy from the local rigger. I can't wait till they start selling kits like they used to. Build your own canopy! It will be just like kit planes or ultra lights. You can buy the plans and print them out. Or for a bit more you can get the peaces pre cut in the mail. Just sew it together. Who has spare time on their laser cutter? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Based on your weight I'd start with some thing in the 170 range or even a bit bigger. You can always load it up. Put on a weight vest. Depending on how you're cutting your panels, it probable wont be that much more fabric. It doesn't scale directly. I think you'll find a more direct correlation between cord length and fabric then surface area. The rest is wastage any way. And cord changes with the sqr root of surface so not that much more fabric for a bigger canopy. There will be much bigger "steps" in fabric with changes in lay out at some point with size but I don't think you're in that range. And bigger canopies are easier to build. Errors stay constant with size. So for a bigger canopy they become negligible or at least much smaller. with smaller canopies every thing gets more critical. And there seems to be a disproportionate change related to canopy volume. How much air is actually in the canopy. I seem to recall that Aerodyne used that in sizing of their CRW canopies at one time. Bottom line, a small canopy, you don't have to squeeze a lot of air out of it to collapse it. Not saying that any thing looks bad in your design. Just saying small is less forgiving. Look around for an old rig out of some ones closet. or build your self a belly rig and jump any size canopy you want. Built my self a new one last week and jumped it on Tuesday. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I agree. Don't know how big you are but if I was going to spend the time building one I'd play with some thing bigger. Regardless of what you normally jump, square footage above your head is your friend. I'm assuming you've read ^^ guys thread, My Little Project. It's getting really long but he's worked his way through many hurdles in terms of construction fabrics sewing patterns etc. Or hell just e-mail him. He's a nice guy. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I never understood why women were so skittish till I met a couple at the drop zone. They had a history of bad/abusive relationships. Attracted them like magnets. Oddly it was mutual. They seemed to be drawn to the one person in the room that would fuck them up worse then any other and these guys could smell them from a distance like a shark smells blood. My point is that I never would have conceived of how many assholes are out there or how bad relationships could become. Until I watched this I never knew how predatory some guys can be. It was to the point that it freaked me out. Lessening to these guys actually frightened me a couple of times. What do you do when you meet some one who's a potential rapist? But if these people taken from a random group represent a certain percentage of the population that should be a fixed number. The concentration should be higher in any hunting ground. A singles bar could in theory be a dangerous place. Is the internet any different? It's essentially a bigger singles bar. And if it's dangerous because it's anonymous then that actually makes it some what safer as well. You can't get ruffyed through a terminal. You have the ability to spend time getting to know them. A lot more time then you would have before making a decision in a bar. A serial killer might be able to hold a straight face for an hour till the bar closes. But you could spend weeks feeling him out on line. A lot more opportunity to get a read on him with your radar. And when you do meet it can be in public and it's not like you have to be alone. It just seems to me that in theory the internet, if used properly, could be safer for women then hanging out in bars and walking across a dark parking lot to their car. The original question was more about cultural changes, politeness, curtisy on the internet. I think it relates more to changes in the value system of our overall society. At first I thought it might be in relation to population density. Big city, if your rude to some one you'll never have to see them again. The internet being the biggest city. But that's a cop out. Their are societies that have gone the other way. Japan as an example, has always had high population density and was an extremely polite culture. I think that's broken down a bit recently. It may be that they have hit their threshold but I think it's more about contamination to their society. I think these changes are more related to a sort of degeneration in the moral societal structure. If you look at changes in our entertainment you kind of see a reflection of what is tolerated. Once apon a time Leave it to Beaver was pushing the envelope. Now they are not even faking the sex in main stream movies. They brag about it. And they digitally merge under age actors heads onto porn stars fucking on screen. Computer generated kiddy porn on the big screen in main stay movies. Had to look it up on Wikipedia to see how they got away with it. When I saw that on net flix I was shocked, No way can that be legal. I think behavior on the internet is just a reflection of this It's a reflection of our society. It might be one of those trick mirrors that magnify the image but every thing you see is really there. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

My best translation: He's working on his data set of existing airfoil shapes. As I recall he was photographing the end ribs of canopies or tracing them. This gave him kind of a wiggle out line. There are a lot of ways to draw a curve. One is to set some points and generate the curves between them. The points are his "knots" and the "splines" are his curves. There are lots of preramiters you can set. Like the line goes straight through the points so the slope is the same on both sides. And how the curve changes between the points. Add infinitum. He's basically trying to draw smooth curves through the lines he traced off other canopies or photographed. There are even ways to automate this to let a computer optimize the shape for you to get as close to all the points as possible. You can if you wish make this as complicated as you like. His computer is having a hernia trying to crunch the numbers for him. The guy clearly has a computer fetish and worships at the alter of Intel. Not judging. It's not my place to criticize his religious views or his sexual deveancies. As some one who was actually really into math, differential geomitry, and curves back when I was in school, I got two words for him. Ship Curve. Look it up. Hell, make your own. Find some thing springy and use it to smooth out the edge of your pattern. Done. Now take it and go start cutting fabric. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Returning to your original question. First off I must point out that I don't have direct experience with any of this never having been a part of the dating thing but standing on the out side of all of this I've had the opportunity to do a lot of people watching. I'm not sure that this is really a bad thing. Our lives can be really small. I mean that in the since of the number of people we know. In the grand scheme of things, how many people do you really know or interact with? The people that you work with? As the most extreme example, think about a drop zone. The old joke, you don't lose your girl friend, you lose your turn. It's like you're trapped inside this microcosm with just a couple hundred people in your whole universe. If you set around long enough watching "As the Prop Turns" you see all the same characters pairing up, breaking up, trading partners, and starting all over again. And they are all trapper there together. There is no escape. I remember one indecent. I was on the floor talking to one of the other packers, She had been around the dropzone for years, and she was freaking out. There were no less then eight of her former lovers there packing on the floor with her at the same time, and I think a ninth was up on a load. It was a boogie or event or some thing and every one showed up on the same day. Half of these guys didn't even live in the same state any more. It's not really healthy. I don't know what the word would be, insestues, In breading... It's like why dating close colleagues at work is a bad idea. You're just too close. If you have a nasty breakup it's hard to have to show up, smile, and work with that person every day. So I think the fundamental idea of internet dating is potentially a good idea. Expanding the boundaries of your world is not a bad thing. But it's up to you how you use it. You are responsible for how you treat people, whether it's in person or on line. Your behavior is all on you and is a product of your fundamental character. If as a society the nature of that character has changed over the years I think it says more about our society then it does about the medium. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Is it just me or does any one else think he looks like a Kirbal with that helmet on? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Returning to some of the comments by the original poster. Your wanting some thing that will come in slow and land softly. I've seen this before back in the 90's when we were making the transition from the older generation of F111 canopies to ZP canopies. An older jumper wanted me to take in his break lines so that his PD nine cell, f111 canopy, would come in slower and he thought land better. What had actually happened was the break lines had shrunk and he was already approaching in partial breaks. The canopy was also aging, but that's another matter. His response was to come in in a bit more breaks to reduce the decent rate but his landing kept getting worse. It took a lot to convince him to let me let out his break lines so the canopy would be in full flight so that he could have enough flare authority to land. It's a mind set from that generation when people actually learned to shoot accuracy and land in the peas. Who even thinks about landing in the peas any more? It's also a product of the generation of canopy at the time. The old school answer was to land better go larger. Today the quality of your landing is more about the amount of flare authority you have. And the landing can be much nicer and more consistent. It's a fundamental paragon shift in both technology and mind set. Having said that you are not going to get acceptable landings out of any modern canopy, short of a student canopy, till you understand this. So my advice to you is don't get hung up on whether it's a seven cell or a nine cell. That's not what you should be focused on. There are advantages to them but they are not necessarily the ones you are thinking of. You're actually being given some fairly good advice but ultimately the quality of your landings will depend on your ability to learn to convert forward speed into lift to kill your decent rate. That's it. Period dot. You can land any canopy of any size if you can learn to zero out it's decent rate. You're going to learn that the speed of the canopy is your friend in this. On some canopies, in order to have enough margin for error, many people like to have extra speed to make their flare envelope more forgiving. This is where front risering and turning on landing come in. You probable wont be in that range. I think you would ultimately be happy with almost any of the canopies suggested to you. Personally I would recommend some thing like a Pulse. It's relatively flat trimmed and packs up smaller then some other canopies. I think you would prefer it's flatter approach over other canopies that are more ground hungry. As to the size, it's not a question of how well you want to land, it's a question of how fast you are will to have to run. People land really small canopies just fine but they run or slide really fast on landing. I think you would prefer some thing fairly large in the 190 to 210 range in any canopy you choose. And that meshes well with the performance range of the Pulse. I'd also encourage you to bite the bullet and buy a new modern reserve. One of the new low bulk ones. It will let you jump a larger reserve canopy and some day you may appreciate that. Read that, not die. Not dyeing is good. And when you land off you don't want a canopy that needs a runway. And rigger like to pack them. They will smile when you walk through the door of the loft. I hate to tell people to spend a lot of money but just go and do it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

To clarify the above comment, I don't think you find it difficult to get some of these packages "going" but getting from them any thing resimbaling the truth out of them is another story. Models are famous for lying to you. They can produce tremendous amounts of fabulous looking data that has nothing to do with reality. The "Expert" part is being able to get them to give you real answers. Alot of that has to do with learning to understand where they break down. And models do break down. You've got this idea in your head that CFD is some magical thing which can give you answers from on high like holly writ. It's not like that. Their are points where it "breaks", shit it just can't handle. And it will feed you garbage on a silver platter. For example, the nose. That big open hole with shit washing in and out of it . Total fucking disaster. any normal CFD program will shit it self trying to deal with that. Their was a study where they tried to simulate it. Really hard problem. Obviously no one from the industry. They chose a very pore airfoil and had the nose cut all wrong and only go some thing vaguely decent when they almost recreated the angle on a canopy. interesting study. Really showed the importance of the nose and nose cut in terms of the in and out flow in relation to the stagnation point. But it was a bear. Absolute monster of a problem. And that was in 2D. So how do you actually think you're going to do this? One way, a classic way, would be to do a two dimensional section and then expand that into the finite wing. That's how a lot of planes are done. Thing is a lot of the techniques for doing this break down at low aspect ratios. Any thing below about an AR of 5 is low. You're talking 2. And keep in mind that you can't even do the wing section, see above study and how far it diverged from the original wing section. So what do you think that you're going to do? A big huge panel problem in a big 3D space? Very complicated and remember the nose. It shit it self trying to do it in 2D. Doing some problems in CFD are not hard but trying to get truth out of it on some thing like this is hard, as in fucking impossible. And how do you know if any thing it's saying is real? Well, you have to validate it, ie. build a canopy. Smartest thing would be to take an existing canopy. Di-sect it, take it apart, it's the only way you'll really be able to measure it, and then try to model it. Can you actually get your model to recreate the "real" data? And if it can't do that then your model is bull shit. And where does that real data come from. People have rented time in BIG wind tunnels where they could kite full size canopies. That's "real" data that you might be able to try to match your model against. And I think you'll find that you're mashing things around so much that you might as well abandon the CFD and just do curve fitting to the real data that you have any way. My take, learn to build a canopy. Get a little data recorder and get some real world data from it. Tweak it and jump again. Repeat. Actual real data. Let's say you spend a year trying to make your CFD work. Well you've had to do the other to validate it any ways. In the mean time you could have spent a year building canopies. That's a dozen canopies maybe two dozen if you were really set up and on the ball. And you would have real world data from all of them over a spread of trims for each of your models. And it's real. Real data not made up bull shit and you've learned to build a canopy which is the other half of it. But that's just my take. My recommendation. Get a data recorder. Start recording data on a base canopy. Start tweaking the trim on that canopy to see how it changes and works. Do this for a couple of canopies. Then try drawing your own rib. Build the canopy and run it over the same spread of trims as the others you have played with. See how they compare. Start building up a library of real flight data for all of these designs. It will give you a good base of real data as you incrementally create your own. And you learn to sew on things. And you get to jump and play with them. Doesn't that sound better then jerking off in front of a computer screen. If you really want to do that then you should at least watch porn and not a CFD program trying to crunch numbers. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I've got some lighter weight tape here. I bought it from Bally Ribbon Mills. I'm using it for a cube sat recovery system project, small round. I just wanted some thing really light, lighter then type 3. I asked them what PD used on their diagonals on their ribs, as an example. they went and checked for me. I asked if they had it in 3/8 inch. Sold me some thing called 7129-3/8" NATURAL PRE-SHRUNK NYLON TAPE. 7129 is their weave number at Bally. I don't think it's any kind of universal spec that you could ask for. They probable have it in 1/2 as well. The 3/8 is like 50 lb tinsel. So it's almost the same strength as f-111, or twice that considering the width. But the point is that on the bias you can basically stabilize the fabric. Looks like PD's shit. Didn't ask for a spec on the elongation but it's really soft. I'll bet that it has some stretch in it so that it doesn't load the fabric too badly. It's a little tricky to sew with. I found that I really need a tape foot to help control it but that was only about $157 from Tennessee attachment. Really cuts down on bulk. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

You need to meet this crazy guy from england that's doing basically the same thing. He's been going through the process of learning how to build his own canopy for the last couple of years. He's doing well with several jumpable prototypes to show for it. Look up "My Little Project" here in the rigging forum. He's struggled with a lot of the same questions. Airfoils do make a difference but don't get too hung up on it. For example he is finding that his airfoil has it's center of pressure slightly farther forward then for example, the old PD nine cell airfoil. If he trims his canopy in the same way he winds up with a very flat flying canopy with a very flat glide but a little short on flare athority. I'm of the build it and jump it school of thought. Their are a lot of things about a canopy that just don't really translate to a program that is built to look at the wing of an airplane. There is a limited value in obsessing about the rib when it's a big floppy bag inflated like a pillow. I mean the "airfoil" is really Poofy between the ribs so you can't really say that the "rib" describes the "airfoil" very well. Some things do translate to the inflated shape of the canopy, at least in the grose since. Maximum thickness, it's location, to some degree the nose shape. But as you go back towards the tail it diverges more. The trailing edge on a normal canopy is very bulbous in comparison to the rib. They are trying to address that more with false ribs now but it's still there. My point is don't obsess too much with your first design. Having said that, I met a guy from Icarus that was trying to play with iterative analysis of canopy design. He had some good CFD software and he was starting to make progress. He was also trying to model the flight of the canopy to give him some guidance of where to go with his iterative design. Don't think he was very far along with that but I give him credit for trying. I've also heard about some of the manufactures trying to address flow separation problems in some slight modes. Base canopies have some really low renalds numbers. It sounded like they were rediscovering... I think it was called laminar bubble separation or some thing like that. It came up back in the 70's when they started to really look at human powered flight. There was a study and a set of airfoils built around avoiding it. Sorry, don't recall the paper. I noticed in one of your drawing what looked like a simple overlap seam joining your top skins to your loaded rib. I know Germain did that on some of his canopies. Please don't. I had to deal with several of his early canopies that were just falling apart at the seams. I finally refused to repair them any more. He basically sewed the seam too narrow. Think about it. 1/2 inch seam sewed with say a 1/4 inch gauge. How much fabric is left on the edge? So one side only has to pull out 1/8 of an inch and the other side only has to pull out 1/8 of an inch and the whole seam starts coming apart. Canopy was falling apart at the seams. I mean that very literally. Brian is normally a very bright guy but he fucked it bad on that one. Every one is allowed one bad idea and that construction method was his. Just go do it. Build some shit. Don't ever let any one, particularly any one who has not successfully done it them selves tell you that you can't do some thing. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I was once told that it involved whether or not they are technically in a separate cabin. For example, an Otter actually has a bulkhead between the main cabin and the cockpit. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It's not quite that easy. They are not all the same. The... chemistry varies. Some brands degrade nylon. Not some thing you would want to mark a harness with. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Thanks. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I bought several boxes of them years ago. I'm starting to run out. I caller paragear and they told me that they no longer carry them. Dixon has stopped making them. What's the new favored brand that people are using right now which does not degrade nylon? And where are you sourcing them? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

There was a nice data recorder they were showing at PIA with GPS, pressure altitude, and accelerometers for like $500. I think I sent you a skype message or some thing about it last year... Sorry don't have the paper work in front of me. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The gravity is still like a third of earths. That isn't really low enough to be of any help. The air is closer to vacuum then it is the an atmosphere. Some one raised the question once if a wing suiter would be supersonic. Bottom line. Mars is not the place to jump. On the other hand Titan has a thick atmosphere, not enough to crush you like Venus. What is it? 1.5 atmospheres? And the surface gravity is like .15 G. It's been theorized that you could strap wings to your arms and fly like a bird. Only problem, it's kind of cold. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

You're lucky to be in south America. Look up a thread called My Little Project to see the trials and tribulations of trying to work in England. If it's a main, I'm assuming that you would like to build a main, I don't think their are any actual requirements. It's kind of a gray area. Oddly their seems to be a distinction as to whether you are manufacturing some thing or repairing it. You'll get different answers depending on who you ask but in theory you might have to be a rigger or a repair facility to repair some thing that you built. But you might not need any of that to build it? You get into these weird arguments at PIA or if you get too many riggers in a room. The truth is that with the notable exception of that guy in England, any one capable of doing this is probable already a rigger. In fact he's probable a master rigger. I can do it and yet I never got around to getting my masters ticket. It might be nice to have one of those around just on principle But I think you could argue that you do not have to be one to be a manufacturer. For a main I don't think you need any certs on materials. That's not to say hat that's a good idea. You need those for materials tracking for your QC program. Legally you might not have to have that but you should. Their have been many problems in that past where we had to track things through the system for recalls and advisory directives. I don't think you need any inspections or certifications for your factory if you are building mains. If you want to build reserves with a US TSO, things change. Now you do need all of these things. Including inspections from the FAA, I think it's the MIDO office? Things like that can be done out side the US but it gets more difficult. Their seem to be some changes coming with acceptance of foren TSO's I honestly don't understand how that will work or what it will mean but it presupposes an existing system in that country which is not always the case in some south American countries. Just go and do it. They could use a manufacturer down there. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

This is something you will see on the big square cargo canopies. They have... a lot of spaghetti. A, B, C, D, E, F, G lines. 15+ cells. And All non cascaded. It's not uncommon at all to have ties all down the lines at like 18 inch increments. We actually tie the A,B,C,D riser groups into a bundle, and the rear group into another so the eight risers are like quartered into four. Then do double wraps on the whole thing to turn it into one big snake. And that's how it comes out. It deploys beautifully like one big fat rope. When it hits line stretch and the slider pops out, it splits into four neat groups. As the slider comes down you can see it rake open each of those as the lines deploy. You can see it all on high speed. It's great not like the normal mass of shit that will give you night mares if you ever watch it frame by frame. That's a SQUARE! Not a round. I've never tried it but I think this would be a terrible idea on a round canopy. It depends on the design but their is very little spreading force at the base till the mouth actually opens. Remember the air on the out side of the mushroom is actually trying to keep it closed. It doesn't need a lot of help to total it. Theirs a lot that goes into that opening force, diameter, apex, porosity, geometric porosity, etc. I don't think a C-9 with it's high po fabric needs any help staying closed especially on a low speed opening. Yes their opening pop, but that pop is when the skirt pops and they over inflate. Even with the elastic vent thingy they leak a lot of air. I don't think you are gaining any thing from that tie. I'm not sure that a single wrap would be enough to streamer it but a stronger thread would. In short I see no upside and death as the alternative. So either you get absolutely no benefit or you die. I'll stop ranting but I don't see this as a good idea. It is possible that it was never intended to be left on their. Some people who do not know how to pack rounds have been know to tie the lines there to try to "keep them neat" Their are people that have never even heard of a line separator. Jeff once found a rig where some thing had been left on there. I don't recall if it was a pull-up cord or a molar strap. It was years ago, but it scared the shit out of him. It was the first black death rig he had ever found. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

He has a three access accelerometer in his AAD's. It allows him to distinguish opening shock from simply reaching zero or a negative fall rate. It also allows him to distinguish between a cutaway and the dive of a supper fast canopy. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

You have a point. Although I have total faith that a C-9 would not blow you on some one so fat I doubt he would walk away from it. On the other hand People like this break just by falling over. I have a skewed view on this. I'm 140 lb's And that's as fat as I've ever been in my whole life. Basically I've never met a round that scared me. The flip side is that I've never ever seen a PEP with a tandem in it. And even some of the smaller tandems, like a 360, would be a bit sporty with a 300 lb fat ass under it. Bottom line. Any one that fat doesn't have any business flying a plane any way. He probable wouldn't even fit in the cockpit. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Yep. Guy in Texas near Houston... Yonky? I can picture the guy buy I can't remember his name. It was a thing when there were still a lot of F111 canopies around being jumped. It worked but the openings got harder when you suddenly turned this old canopy design into ZP. He generally had to change out the slider for a bigger size. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It's worth playing with it with the slider up as well. I don't think you'll see any real difference with this canopy but with smaller canopies that small increase in anhedral, arc, can make it a bit more twitchy. Some canopies with specter lines when they get out of trim and the tips shrink down can get down right scary. They become become less stable in roll. I'm talking small things, an early 72 fx comes to mind. I think that's part of the reason every one went to Vectran and HMA. I doubt you'll actually be able to tell the difference with this canopy. Some of this you're getting into piloting rather then design. Let's take the sashay line twist as an example. With some thing like that you can very easily unload the canopy. At that point it can easily turn leaving your body behind. Some of this is a technique thing. you can kind of keep it loaded with how you fly the canopy and the timing in how transition from one toggle to another. I can't really explain it. The closest analogy I can come up with is how you waggle your wings in a plane and how the rudder and yoke are coordinated. You probable wont get that but the point is that that really isn't a design issue with the canopy. In fact it speaks well of the canopy. It implies that it's reasonable efficient and has decent flair authority. In fact I'd be disappointed if you're canopy wasn't capable of that. But this isn't a defect. If any thing it's a result of your rather light wing loading and a fairly high performance canopy with good flair authority. You see this all the time when young jumpers used to buy saber ones at light loadings. If you leave the slider up it will simply be that much easier to do this. That does not reflect on the design. The nose on sashay. You will unload and reduce the AOA on one side of the canopy during this. To some degree this again relates to how you fly the canopy. It's normal. Now as it relates to my earlier observation. Looking closely at a couple of the pictures where you seemed to be in full flight. At the glide angle of the canopy you seem to have a slightly lower angle of attack towards the tips. In one since that would not be considered a bad thing. You might do that on a plane. But his is a canopy. If you run out of lift on the wing tip it's going to fold. To be clear I don't think it looks scary, but I think it could be better. It's a subtle change but If you revisited the angle of the line about which you rotate the airfoil, I think you could improve that. It's some thing I think you might look at on the next iteration of this canopy. It will just mean two new pattern pieces, top and bottom skin. As it relates to the sashay, Although a lowering of the AOA on one side of the wing is normal with that. This twist in your wing is not helping. It just makes it more susceptible. Again, I haven't seen any thing scary. But when you build the Yellow Thing Mk 2 this is an example of some thing you might tweak. I think you have a nice canopy. From what I see It looks as good as a lot of the things that have been built and sold. I can tell you for a fact that it's better and less scary then some of the things I have jumped. I see absolutely no reason that you should not be able to get it "Certified", what ever the fuck that means, by a BPA rigger. That will probable involve letting him jump and evaluate it. The only problem I see is that he may want to do an "Extensive" evaluation of the canopy. In other words, once he jumps it, he may like it so much that you may not get the canopy back. Cough, Cough, (Bribe), Cough. But since at that point it will be an approved design... you start building them in mass and start to recoup some money. Time to start to locking in these designs, expanding the range of sizes and put an ad in BPA magazine. The have a magazine right? I'd go big. Full page color. Headline... BRITONS FIRST RECOGNIZED CANOPY MANUFACTURER!!! CHEAP CANOPIES!!! LOWEST PRICES!!! Your fans on the rigging comity will love it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com