polarbear

I had two experiences with old vs. new Velos. The short answer is I don't think there is much difference. If you want details... The first experience was on 96's. My first 96 was bought used, DOM 08/01, with 500 jumps on it. I jumped it for 325 jumps, putting new lines on it after about 100, and then bought a new one in January '06. The new Velo came with a bigger slider and thus opened slower. It also seemed to lose just a little more altitude during a turn (less than 50 ft) and have just a little more bottom-end flare, but I think that was due to the difference between new and old fabric. Really, the two canopies were very close. The second experience was on 90s. I had a demo 90 from PD that was DOM '99. I don't know how many jumps were on it, but it had brand spanking new lines. After trying that canopy I bought a new one, DOM 05/06. Those two canopies flew exactly the same. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I really think the best thing to do is to find a way to allow hop n'pops or high pulls, always. Places like Eloy will let you do it only at certain times. If you allow hop n' pops, most of the hard-core swoopers will likely choose to do that and will get filtered out of the mess. I don't think organizing the load according to wing loading makes sense, simply becasue wingloading is only one factor. What about pull altitudes? What about flying styles? In order to maintain vertical seperation, common sense dictates that faster canopies open lower. However, The more HP a canopy I fly, the higher I find myself opening to allow suffcient altitude to deal with malfunctions. Alternate landing areas are also a good idea, but at some DZs the real estate doesn't exist or it's just too expensive to build/maintain a second landing area. I really think the easiest thing to do is not just allow but encourage hop n' pops or high pulls for the greater-than-180 crowd. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I didn't mean that stabilizers had to be pushed out to work, just that in the case of non-rigid stabilizers (like the fabric ones we have on our canopies), they WILL be bulged out if they are working. Think about it, the stabilizer has high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other. The high pressure will push the non-rigid stabilizer in the direction of the low pressure, thus bulging it out. The bulging isn't necessary for the stabilizer to work, it's just a sign that it is working. If you can get your hands on the video 'Parabatix', there is a scene where Wyatt Drews swoops over a fire. As his VX (which has stabilizers) flies through the smoke from the fire, you can see a massive wing tip vortex, despite the stabilizer. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I don't have my aerodynamics books at home with me, but I looked up 'winglet' in Wikkipedia. According to them: 'The exact upward angle (called cant) of the winglet, and its inward angle (or toe) is critical for correct performance, and is determined for each aircraft application. The vortex which rotates around from below the wing strikes the angled surface of the winglet, generating a small lift force that angles forwards relative to the direction of flight — thus the energy in the vortex contributes to thrust rather than drag as it normally would'. Thia would agree with what I am saying, that winglets aren't there to reduce wing tip vorticies. Instead, they use the airflow created by the vorticy to produce a lift force that is vectored forward. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

The way I have been thinking about stabilizers on HP canopies is as follows... The stabilizer is there to help keep high pressure air underneath the wing from bleeding over to the the low pressure air on top of the wing. That means that if it is working, the stabilizer should be 'bulged out'...since the stabilizer isn't rigid, the high pressure air underneath should push the stabilizer outwards. This should be visible. I've spent some time watching HP canopies, both in first person and in third person, and what I see is that in most flight modes, the stabilizers aren't bulging out...they're just flapping in the breeze. This indictaes to me that stabilizers are not containing the high pressure air underneath the wing and thus are not helping. The only time I see the stabilizers bulge out is when you are deep in the toggles, like at the end of your flare. This would reinforce that stabilizers make the biggest difference at the end of the swoop, when you are deep in toggles. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

As I understand it, winglets don't reduce wingtip vorticies like stabilizers are meant to. Winglets try to take advantage of wingtip vorticies and use them to produce a positive effect. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Well...I wouldn't call it hype, but it is a fact that if you are comparing a JVX to Velo, you are comparing two different canopies made by different companies and measured by different methods. What you said is true, you have to measure the size when inflated...but I would bet that the JVX comes out bigger than the Velo. What really matters is that you load each canopy appropriately. If you compare a Velo and a JVX, of equal size, loaded with the same suspended weight, I can almost gaurantee you will like the Velo better. It will be faster, more responsive, and have a longer recovery arc, making it easier to swoop with. You HAVE to load up the JVX to a higher wingloading to see the benefit. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

My JVX 87 doesn't just fly bigger than a Velo 90, it actually is bigger if you lay it on the ground. I think you have to compare something like an 83-84 JVX to a Velo 90 in order to actually compare similar square footages. This means the wingloading actually has to be higher on the JVX (based on placarded size) in order to be making an even comparison - this is just my observation based on flying the canopies and on laying them out on the ground. Even beyond that, I think the JVX likes even more wingloading. It really starts to come alive at higher wingloadings. Even with a smaller placarded size, my JVX 83 likes having a higher suspended weight then my Velo 90. The Velo seems to peter out around 2.5 - the JVX is still going strong at 2.8. If you fly the same sized JVX as a Velo, you will probably find the JVX to be slower, less responsive, and harder to swoop with because of the shorter recovery arc. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Winglets and stabilizers are different things that work on a different principle. Stabilizers are there to help keep the high pressure air underneath the wing from spilling over to the low pressure air on top of the wing. This is supposed to reduce the wing tip vorticies and thus the resultant induced drag that comes with them. The problem is that stabilizers have to be pretty big to actually help, and they add parasite drag as they get bigger. By the time they are big enough to significantly affect the induced drag the parasite drag has increased enough to offset the benefit. Winglets are actually small airfoils placed at the ends of the wings. It's hard to explain without a good diagram, which I don't have available, but basically, these small airfoils are placed at an angle of incidence such that the lift they create is vectored slightly forward and thus offsets the induced drag. That may not make sense or may sound like BS - it took me a while before I believed it. I do know that the winglets you see on modern airliners actually work pretty well. There is a book out there called 'Illustrated Aerodynamics' by Skip Smith. It does a pretty good job of explaining things. I believe that stabilizers on small HP canopies don't help much, so removing them is a benefit. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I picked up a modification from Jay Moledzki that I really like. It's basically what Sun Path does on their 'easy grip' loops but better. Take a piece of 1" square weave (the stuff toggles are made of) and sew it all the way around the outside of the dive loop. Then fill the channel inbetween the loop and the square weave with pices of bungee cord. Sun Path puts like 4 pieces of bungee cord into the channel; I stuff it with seven or eight. The result is the loops hold themselves open, plus the bungee cord pads things a bit and gives you a more comfortable grip. It's the best solution I've found. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This is true, but I still think there is a major unfair advantage to a factory team. Let's face it, the vast majority of us aren't really going to be able to modify our canopies. We wouldn't know how to modify a canopy for better performance, nor do we have the equipment or skills to make a change to a complex parachute like a cross-braced canopy, nor do we have the money to afford experimenting with changes. For most of us, if we go in and start cutting stuff up to modify it and screw up, how many of us can just shrug that off and start over with a new canopy? Not many. It's a big advantage if you have a manufacturer backing you. They have the knowledge, they have the equipment, and they pay for it. As I said in my previous post, it's a tough call...on the one hand I like seeing these manufacturers working on tweaking a wing for better performance. On the other hand, I think things have to be fair. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Right on. It's kind of a tough call to make...on the one hand, I like seeing the various manufacturers trying new things to improve parachute performance. On the other hand, I think it's unfair to have some competitiors using equipment that isn't available to the rest of the field. Even if all the mods are only worth 5% more performance, the guy with the modified canopy can be that much more conservative/sloppy and the guy with the stock canopy has to be that much more on his game to come out ahead. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Ive got an 87 Hybrid, sail on top and bottom, packs like a 120. My all-sail 83 packs like a BIG 135. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'll tell you how gay it looks every time I see it, whether you are 100 ft. further down the course or not "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Yep...it fired on landing and no, it was not set for any offset. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Well...when I first got my Velocity 96, which I loaded at 2.1:1, I was doing 270's. At that time I had a Cypres in my rig but I never fired it. About a year ago I started doing 630's on the same Velocity. At that time I had no Cypres (I had taken it out and sold it). I had a friend, though, who had a Cypres that had just passed the 12-year mark. I put it in my pocket and went up and did my normal 630. It fired. So, what I meant was that if your wingloading is high enough, and you are doing a big enough turn, you could fire a Cypres. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Assuming your profile is right, you're at a very high wingloading, so it's definitely possible. I think it depends on what kind of turn you are doing and how you do it. I can tell you I did 270's under a velocity 96 at a wingloading of 2.1:1 and didn't have problems. A 630 under that same velocity at 2.1:1 fired the cypres. It depends on what you're doing. Have you been jumping a standard cypres for a while? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

The word I heard is that the NEOS is not actually an Icarus canopy. It is being produced by the company in Spain that manufacturs Icarus canopies for NZ Aerosports. It was not designed by the same person that designed the Icarus line...in fact, he refused to allow the Icarus label to be put on it. I don't know if that's true, but if you look at the pictures of the NEOS, the side labels don't say "Icarus NEOS". They just say "NEOS". "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Well, I don't think it's retarded, I think it's pretty interesting. I just find myself wishing we could talk face to face about it. I don't think that's necessarily true. What you are describing sounds to me more like the difference between a fast-rate turn and a slow-rate turn, not a turn started from brakes or full flight. I do my turns from full flight and still do long ones (I don't whip over real fast hook turns)...I'm typically doing 7 or 8 seconds for a 630. I rely on the turn to generate the speed, not the recovery arc. I guess, to me, the thing I am looking for is I want my front risers pulling out of my hands right as I'm coming around on heading at the end of my turn. On my canopy, I can hold my risers down for about 8 seconds if I start a turn from full flight. If I do it out of brakes, I can hold 'em down for about 10 seconds. I find that 10 seconds is too slow for a 630 - the turn is too slow to get a good dive going. 8 seconds works well for me...I can do the turn at a good rate, and my risers are just pulling out of my hands as I finish the turn. I admit, the idea that you can hit maximum speed before the gates and then slow down before you start the swoop is an interesting concept. I've always operated on the idea that it doesn't matter when on the turn you max out the canopy; it just matters that you max it out and then hold it until you're through the gates. If I get a chance I might play around with this some this weekend. I stopped doing braked approaches back when I was still doing 270s. Maybe I'll like them better when I do bigger turns. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

That doesn't make sense to me...it's true the canopy can dive longer if you start from brakes, but that's becasue you're starting at a slower speed. I don't see how you can achieve a higher speed at the end of the dive. The longer dive you can do from brakes is because you are starting slower...the extra time in the dive is spent making up the difference between full flight and brakes. The max speed at the end of the dive should be the same??? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I've done both through my career. The way I think about it is... In brakes, you are starting at a slower speed. Therefore you must dive either harder or longer to reach a given speed. I personally don't think the canopy dives any harder (steeper) - assuming that's true, then the canopy must dive longer to achieve a given speed. This means either bigger turns (more rotation) or slower turns. Slowing the turn might help, but there's a limit - if you turn too slow, the canopy never really gets diving. So that means longer turns. The moral of the story is I think if you are doing short turns (like a 270), I don't think you dive long enough to make up the speed difference when you start in brakes. If you are doing big turns, it doesn't matter that much. I prefer starting from full flight. One advantage from starting in brakes is that you aren't moving so fast during setup, so it can be easier to hit your turn point. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just out of curiosity, how have competitors been dealing with the new weight regulations? Are people flying smaller canopies and maintaining the high wingloadings we saw last year, or sticking with the bigger wings at lighter loadings? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I'll be there for the comps April 22, Jun 3, Jul 1, and probably the PST camp in July. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Anybody know if they clocked Luigi when he was landing the 46 or the 39? Or anybody else at a super-high wingloading? They might be the fastest. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

You bet your ass I would, especially since I already fly at 5K. If I could find a good job in the Denver area I'd be there. Not just becasue of the pond, but I liked the area, I liked the people... On a side note, I do find it quite a challenge to go down to sea level, but I find it a challenge to come back, too. It depends on what you are used to. I do think it's true that you go faster and further at 5K but I don't think that masks bad technique. In the end run it comes down to one thing: Did I do better than I did on the last swoop, or not? That applies at all flying conditions. You just have to keep in mind that a swoop of a given distance at high altitude doesn't mean as much as that same distance at sea level. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"