Martini

Worst excuse for a troll I've seen yet. This is the best you can do? Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Obviously you are jumping a canopy that is much too big. If you get a smaller canopy like everyone else it will be much easier to pack. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Have you asked any swoopers why dive blocks aren't generally used for swooping? Sometimes you eat the bear..............

When I got to jump a beta of the FlySight, my response was "I want one as soon as I can have it". When I found out that production had begun I immediately ordered one. Thanks Michael. I'd be amazed if anyone wasn't similarly impressed with this device. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Anyway can anyone tell me what Tony does to the wing if you send it in and get it mod for $150.00? Yes, Tony can. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Might have something to do with BASE jumpers screwing with the troll. Here the troll usually wins. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Lame. Like your posts and profile. Edited to add: I just called my mom, she laughed and said you didn't have any. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

You might find this useful. http://shop.bowlersparadise.com/bowlingballs.aspx?gclid=CPW13rOJ96MCFRN6gwodqWYA3Q Lurch hit the mark right on 'cept for the w/l. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

What a fascinating concept, really can you imagine that there could be such a thing as overloading a wing? How's the bowling league going for ya pal? Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Hopefully the V-4 is a significant step above the V-3, not like the V-2/V-1 change. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I love it when people give advice on what "should work". We've done many 4-way w/s jumps from a 182, Tony's method works well, so does 2 on the step, one sitting in the door with a foot on the strut followed by a door diver. With practice the exit is pretty seamless and only takes a little longer to set up than a 4-way RW. Having a pilot willing to give a decent cut helps. I've never seen a wingsuit exit from the camera slot on a 182, not saying that it can't be done but it doesn't strike me as a safe thing to do. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Do you mean he has 400 jumps on this canopy? What is "small"? What is" higher performance" You obviously have information that you think is unimportant, others might feel differently. Why withhold information? You imply lack of experience is a factor ("Sub 500-jumper under small higher performance canopy") but don't let the reader understand the facts. Later you suggest that the gear had nothing to do with the incident, that isn't consistent with your conclusion that the jumper was using inappropriate gear. What's up with that? Let the reader draw conclusions, your opinion isn't as important as the facts. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I have lots of riser sets, my Infinity risers, both velcro and non-velcro, are not only my favorites but the ones that I most trust. Second to them are a set of pin-type risers from RWS. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I just realized who you are! You're the same guy that, about 25 years ago, invented the 200 miles per gallon carburetor but couldn't give anyone the details because the big oil companies stole the patent. And you're the guy who knows how to make an engine that uses water for fuel but no one will buy his idea because he won't demonstrate the engine or discuss the principle. Seriously, good on ya for even building a suit, it's an accomplishment to be proud of. But you can't possibly expect anyone to believe your claim of superior flight characteristics without proof. You have already discovered that nobody is that foolish. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Now that there is one of the nicest trolls I've seen. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Brian, Chuck and Sean are all right on about the Sabre as a wingsuit canopy. If it's not opening well it more than likely needs a lineset, you may get better openings with a larger slider but in any case hang on to the Sabre. I have three and don't intend to change. If you ever get to the point where you want more spice in your ride then get a smaller Sabre. (save the downsizing flames, OK?) Meanwhile I think that you'll be amazed at what a new lineset will do for you, way cheaper than a new canopy too. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I think it was one of the things my mom told me not to do and it involves people she warned me to stay away from. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I know you're not serious. If you've psycho packed or even studied the method you know the answer. Bagging is part of packing, making a distinction is irrelevant. My limited experience with psycho packing did not produce desirable results, also I don't find the method particularly useful. Then again I am a truly shitty packer using any method.

Since psychopack is a BAGING method and not a PACKING method, how can it affect the opening?*** There are several steps in the psycho that aren't typical of a usual pro-pack. Openings are definitely affected. Even if the psycho was merely a bagging method it could have an effect on openings. BTW it's bagging not baging even in all caps. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Whoa there Jethro, it takes a manly man to trust his life to a tandem instructor of unknown quality. You, on the other hand, jump in a fu-fu dress, hold hands with other "men" in the air and deploy a mini-skirt sized canopy after that. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

thinking about downsizing from a 188 to a 90-something ;) Quote That won't make the problem go away, smaller canopy goes in a smaller d-bag. Unless you put the 90 in the 188 bag. Then you'll have some other more serious problems. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

I decided a while back to use a conservative canopy for wingsuit, I jump a Sabre 120 or 107. Never had a problem with the Xaos-21 but could see it coming. Also I used to throw extremely low with the V-2/Sabre combo, the Xaos is a poor choice there. Since I don't throw low (skydiving) anymore I've considered using the Xaos again since it's so much fun to fly, I'll have to be much more current before I go there though. BTW I'm sure you're aware that most people consider a crossbraced canopy to be inappropriate for wingsuiting, great that you're having good results with the 21 and 27. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Taking it to the limit......it is possible to open at 5000 ft., for example, and use up all of it with a single 360 degree revolution (or any fraction of that "spin"). Of course, you will use all 5000 ft. in straight flight, too, so figuring out what inputs combined with various wingloadings, wing shapes, etc. will give what results will be a little complex. (if you can read that last sentence and make any sense of it, please let me know what I meant ) Quote Yes Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Well, I got what I wanted here by being rude. Again. We just moved from mindless drivel to thoughtful discussion. BTW I find the original question to be fascinatingly complex but I'm still more interested in what's going on at the end of a 360. And some hard data would be nice. To use extreme examples of why this aint simple shit: 1) I can make ANY canopy "dive" 2000 feet in a 360 using brakes, risers or harness input just by using very tiny inputs. 2) I can, in my experience, lose a lot more altitude doing a fast 270 to initiate a steep dive and letting the dive continue to a 360 than I could using a gentle input for four times as long. My simplest take on this is based on acceleration, find the acceleration curve that gives the best result. Accelerate too quickly OR too slowly and you don't get the largest altitude loss per revolution or the most system energy. And the largest altitude loss per 360 won't neccesarily equate to the best swoop. (see example 1) I'm not a reincarnated German philosopher, just a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. Stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog. Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Gee, all the pat answers like "because you're in a dive longer" or "Why did i cover more distance after driving for an hour vs 30 minutes? Could it be that it's because I spent more time traveling? :) " Really cute, really worthless. The slower turn has a shallow dive angle but for a longer time, the faster turn has a steeper dive for a shorter time. Logically the end result COULD be the same. Or not. Because you don't necessarily lose more altitude in a slow 360 vs a fast one. It's just a common assumption, one that won't be true in all cases. It also doesn't address the canopy dive angle and speed at the end of the 360, the energy left in the system. Kinda important if you're swooping. IMO Sometimes you eat the bear..............