morris

This ain´t a swooptrick, this is just what every student in Russia has to perform on his very first landing to see if he has what it takes...

The date for the meet is the last weekend of May. More than 20 competitors already registrated, some slots left. How fast can you go? http://www.speedskydiving.eu/

Very common beginnermistake... Taking the major overnight change of windspeed (~10 knots?) into account that was not too bad for your experience level, I´ve seen worse... You are right, it doesn´t help for this part... Cool. But asking for help will provide way faster and better results... Don´t take the rest of my answer too serious! Yes, there are! Damn! Welcome to the dark side! There should be a law against this! Don´t set your goals too high!

I got your point of the better visible markers if a black liner is used. But how about olive-green? (A colours I havn´t really been thinking about before.) This would be pretty dark as well - but would maybe make the pond look much more like a natural pond? Especially being surounded by grass.... A colour called "terracotta" (a bit more red than the sand-coloured liner) is available as well. In addition they produce grey but this is by far the most expensive one and I don´t like the colour either. I, myself, still think that blue would be pretty nice and impressive... hmmmm... what to do...

In addition to the difference in linelength, the smaller canopy will - while having the same aspect ratio (at least very likely but not for granted, sometimes you´ll find minor differences in the aspect ratios of different seizes of the same type of canopy but those differences are usually after the second decimal point) - have less span. A theoretical wing with an infinite span would not create any induced drag at all (as there wouldn´t be no possibility for the high pressure air under the wing to move towards the low pressure air on top). So less span results in a higher induced drag for the smaller canopy. On the other hand less span will reduce profile drag. Which one is more important? There isn´t just one answer to this question as this depends on the airspeed you are flying at a given moment, at high speeds profile drag "takes over" and at lower speeds induced drag is your "enemy". Don´t want to go into details, just wanted to add that it´s not just about the difference in linelength. In addition parasite drag will not be that much lower on the smaller chute to compensate for the loss of liftcreating surface area...

Interesting thought! Never thought about this, just thought about how nice blue would look... Do you really think it would make seeing markers that much more difficult? Maybe I could compensate for this by using a colour for the markers that is as easy to spot as possible, something like bright orange for example...?

The surrounding area is green, it is grass. Not sure yet about the dye...

Is he going for 10 or 5ft gates? Was this round 1 or 2?

"...even when your toggle is set long enough so that you can´t ever stall em???" How long? How far "out of reach" is the stallpoint? As always the answer to your question depends on many things (type of canopy, WL, blablabla) but if you want me to keep it as simple as possible I´d have to say "yes, you can!" Depending on how far "out of reach" your togglestallpoint is and - in the first place - how aggressive your input is, you will very likely be able to stall it. If you are going for the most extrem possible input ("trying to break the brakelines") the stallpoint will very likely being "within reach". If you are giving it at try and it doesn´t stall, ask yourself if you´ve really been shooting for the most aggressive ("I-wanna-break-the line") type of input. Most people don´t dare to give that much of an input (or sometimes aren´t even able to for physical reasons) in a "training-szenario" - something that can be different if they are about impacting the ground... However - now it gets important - I DON`T RECOMMEND to achieve this kind of stall to anyone. As this might sound opposite to what I´ve written above (somewhere), let me explain: I have persons experimenting with aggressive inputs, doing this the goal is not to create this kind of result, we´re not going that far. The goal is to get familiar with way more aggressive inputs than what persons are usually used to, to have them applying an input aggressive enough to safe them, if the time comes they need it. (Hopefully never,"stay out" comes first, see Dave above!) Once in a while someone is "obeying too much" to what I´m telling him and skipping a step (or three or four, many...) on the way towards more and more aggressive inputs (the last one was a soldier) and those are the once coming down "Holy ____!" If you go for it, don´t blame me for ANY outcome, including being "scared as hell/to death" (chutes don´t like it at all!!), cut-aways (by the way, Optimums rock!) or worse! Don´t be scared to experiment with "reasonabel inputs" as it really takes something to "get in trouble", but keep this in mind! I don´t wanna say anything more detailed as anything I´m able to do here is "written only" and as I mentioned, I´m not even a native speaker. Of course the internet is better than "by trial and error only" but this - as anything that might be dangerous - is something that belongs under the supervision of a qualified coach with a reasonable reputation. Problem is: How does someone know if something can "result in trouble" or worse?? See, always a good idea to see a good canopycoach! Hope this answered your question well enough...

Dave, I´m with you, agree on everything of the above/everything you´re saying 100%!

!Thank you! Good to hear that the time to write this kind of stuff isn´t wasted. I´m not a native speaker and I´m not typing fast, this takes time... And in reply to: BTW not only have I never stalled a wing digging out a low hook but I don't remember ever seeing it happen watching swoop videos that inlude plenty of low digs. I guess we don´t need to talk about the dangers and limitations of digging out on rears, rearisersstalls, blablabla... Digging out on toggles can create stalls. I agree that this isn´t happen often and that you really need to apply some very serious input to create that kind of result, but I´ve seen it more than once. In my courses persons are experimenting with "emergency flares" and ultra fast recoverys. Most of them are not creating togglesstalls - but some do/are able to. If they don´t, one reason (among others) might be that the are not applying the most aggressive possible input ("Ok, on this one, try to break your brakelines!" :-) ). But if someone is about hitting the ground, he might hit the toggles hard enough to get "his chute in trouble"... However, most of the times - in real emergencies/accidents/low turn situations - people are not apply enough input to avoid hitting the ground because they are scared of stalling the wing (not knowing their wing well enough!) while they actually are still far away from stalling it. So practising/experimenting with different types of "serious toggle inputs" for fastest possible recovery is always a good idea... I need to go...

I´d like to add something as wing level might not be precise enough. Being in a too low diving turn the emergency rule is "1.Pitch,2.Roll!" You need to slow down your rate of descent asap, to stop turning has not the highest priority. For whatever reason people often stop the turn first before they try to bring the pitch up to stop the descent, wasting time/alti. In a real emergency, if executed correctly, you might arrive at groundlevel while still turning, but without the REAL danger of a high rate of descent. The opposite szenario is way more dangerous. This can be drilled up high. Initiate a diving turn, lets say to the left. Wrong: Hit the right toggle to stop the turn, continue with both toggles to stop the dive. Correct: Hit both toggles to stop the dive, continue pulling the right toggle to stop the turn. Done this way you´ll end up in level flight while still turning (before you continue to apply toggleinput on the right) = carving as hell (fun!). Try both "versions" to feel the difference. Exception from the rule: If your turn is that aggressive that your wing is level with the horizon some stopping of the roll (= bringing the wing back up) is necessary to make the + of pitch really stopping your dive as fast as possible. In this situation you should nevertheless start pulling down both toggles from the beginning on, just pull a bit more/faster on the right side... Regarding the original question: At a slow airspeed the air is able to "follow" the profil for longer (a more deflected wing) than at a higher airspeed. Therefore the stallpoint is reached sooner at higher airspeeds, bad news. But there is a way around this! Imagine this drill: Aggressive turn, stop turning, canopy on final heading, recovery just starts (up high please), hit both toggles hard, all the way, trying to end up in level flight (or even climbing big time) asap. In this szenario there is a maximum speed you can pull down your toggles without creating a highspeed stall. Now imagine pulling your toggles only half way down. What is the benefit? If you are pulling less distance, you can pull even faster without creating a stall. The speed of the input is of way more importance for the overall outcome than the distance (inches) of the input! So you can recover even faster while pulling less distance but faster!! Not kidding! In a real emergence this brings another benefit into the picture. Szenarion 1, pulling all the way: The aggressive toggleinput will bring you from way behind to somewhere in front of your wing/somewhere in front of the neutral position under the wing. From this "place" behind you, your canopy will pass over your head (overshooting) to the front before returning to neutral flight. Not something you wanna have if the ground is right there... Szenario 2, pulling half way down: While being swung in front, being in 1/2 brakes, watch your wing (up high) as the wing comes back over your head, the moment it (the wing) is about passing over to the front, apply what is left of toggleinput! This will avoid the chute from overshooting! In a real emergency you might even be able to create a nice soft landing with a well executed flare from half brakes. But this should just be an option if you know your wing very(!) well, otherwise and if in doubt, I´d always recommend a PLF...

Hi Ian, I might be able to make it in July. Meet you there like in good old Texas?

Why will not all meets be on the pond?

From all I can see it´s caused by the turbulence, not by a "regular" stall. By the time it happens you are slightly higher, right where the burble is. From your view it doesn´t look like being that much higher at first glance, it looks like you might be below the burble - but you are not - your body (and video) is below the burble, your wing is obviously right in it. Your friends backview is proving that, by the time you come into the picture you are still higher than he is, you are passing by him once you´ve been hit. In addition you are offset to the right by the time the left part of your canopy does get hit = burble! If you watch your friends view it looks like you are coming into the picture more or less by the time you get hit. But watching it frame by frame you´ll see yourself just BEFORE you get hit (for a frame or two) and you are far away form stalling your canopy, you are flying more or less 1/4 brakes, maybe even less (don´t know the length of your brakelines). The way the canopy looks like right after the hit (if you pause the video) is not "stallrelated" as the front of the chute is collapsed while the tail is still rocksolid, something you would not expect to see while being stalled... Personal note: We used to do "airspeed-style-formationlandings" with the german 8way team (and Dan BC-input). We had two lines of chutes flying parallel to each other with a little bit of an vertical and horizontal offset between the two lines. The leading and lower flying lines included the lower laoding chutes. On landing we all turned together and the highloading chutes passed through the gaps of the lower loading chutes during the swoop. Doing this I´ve once got hit by a burble while still flying pretty high, but already as part of the formation. The reopening of the chute was so brutal that a center C-line broke...!

A good year to visit Europe, see: http://www.speedskydiving.eu/?p=p_60&sName=schedule-2011

We realised that any wrist or helmetmounted "speedmeasuringdevice" will very likely deliver wrong (=way too fast) readings as any movement of hand or head will change the airflow around the device all in a sudden, creating those misreadings, especially for the topspeed. The average speed is not that much affected (but a little bit as well as the too high topspeed is bringing the average up). We´ve been running a speedcomp for fun all season long in 2010. We´ve not been looking for the average but the topspeeds. The most extrem misreading we had during that season was a helmetmounteddevice that came up with a topspeed of 411km/h while the two official red speed pro tracks, mounted by ISSA-rules, gave a topspeedaverage result of just 278km/h! This gives an impression that you are likely way slower than you think you are if you are relying on helmet or wristmounted devices...

Maybe, you never know - but he doesn´t seem to be the type of guy who wears ´em in public, so he´ll be doing it with brute force! Dave, we are waiting for your picks! Tipp: How about Nick winning Freestyle?

Your picks seem to me very good! But to choose the same would be boring, so here I go: Speed: Marat Distance: Nick Accuracy: Jay Freestyle: Jeffro Overall: Jonathan

Looks like "don´t take this too serious(ly?)" was a waste of letters... Tim: We are having fun here, don´t we? :-) Stu: Thanks!! The speedworldrecord you´re mentioning still stands as the europeanspeedrecord and regarding the new distance record, Spain was correct... Dave: Thanks as well!! And an additional specialthanks for that comp at SD Houston, great job!! Remember how it took Hans Paulsen the best part of the airfield to come to a stop after that downwind speedrun? :-) Ian: If you´ve already been gone by that time you´ve missed the best and most extrem part! Hans: Wow!!! DocPop: A warm welcome! Take your time... And to the topic: As we all know, a basic rule is that rearrisers are the better choice in no or light winds, toggles the better choice if a tailwind (from a certain strength on, in a light tailwind you might still be better off with rears) comes into the picture. (And not always but many times a long spot will come with a tailwind - that´s the good news - as you likely will have been among the last persons to leave the plane.) In a tailwind you are looking for the lowest rate of descent to maximize the time under canopy as you are receiving "distance-covering-presents" from/by the wind every (additional) moment you spend in the sky. Now question is, how much of a toggle/brakeinput will "deliver" the lowest possible rate of descent? On a 7cell of the eighties this would have been about 1/2 brakes. Any deeper than that and you just altered your glidepath to/for the worse. For the average loaded and seized intermediate chute of today it´s for sure deeper than 1/2 brakes, lets say 3/4 brakes (just to say something). Now with high or ultrahigh loaded x-braced canopies its different again, it´s even deeper. My rule for this type of canopies: The higher the loading, the closer to the stallpoint is the point of lowest rate of descent. (The point you are looking for if you have a reasonable amount of tailwind "on your side".) So at a loading of "just" 1.9 80% brake/toggleinput might be ideal, at a loading of 2.7 it will be more likely 95%...

no, it´s not, it´s what it´s all about freefall is highly overrated and a waste of altitude and money swooping is the most intense experience the sport has to offer and nothing but terminal (Basegear) lowpulls even comes close (but even with the most extrem lowpulls you can not carry all of your speed down to groundlevel - if you wanna repeat it) don´t take this too serious, just my spontaneous reaction... I agree on "you don´t have to on every jump", abording before the turn due to traffic (or for any other reason(s)) is obvious...

We´ve got three Storms (150,135,120) with the "casual-CF-kit" AND dacronlines. On one (or was it two?) of the chutes we´ve had the outside A-lines changed as well to be uncascaded. I don´t see any reason not to jump the "casual-CF-version" on every jump, you don´t need to use the additional rings on top of the chute all the time, just as you need ´em. Get the kit! The only thing to think about is the linechoice...

No, not really. It depends on the headwind. When you're loaded closer to 3 than 2 and you have the speed and a lighter headwind, you can still gain ground with a bit of a pop up. That´s my opinion as well, Dave. Absolutely agree on this...

And to make all of this not to theoretical (and therefore maybe boring), here´s a low resolution cellphonevideo of my "somersault-run" that came up. As the touchdown is too far away and the resolution too low for the somersault to be visible, feel free to post your own somersault-freestyle-videos here! Stu, I know I should have stayed on my rears longer to go even further, but this very run I´m glad I didn´t! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCgGSdnoU0