Hooknswoop

I checked it out. It isn't a "quad" cell. It has one rib per cell, same as a standard 7-cell. The crossbracing attaches between the center rib and the load bearing rib. If you took out one rib per cell on an FX and centered the other rib, leaving the x-braces in place, it would look like the new Atair canopy. I didn't get to see it fly, Eric chopped it and it spent the weekend on the floor. Hook

My reserve is loaded at 1.72. Very tricky to land. It stalls very easy and abruptly. Your 143 will fly very differently from your Spectre 170. Since you would be most likely lower than normal and possibly landing out when you are under your reserve for the first time, consider it an investment in your future to demo your size reserve. Hook

"A larger canopy is built to take the load.... Smaller ones are not... " I am not sure you are saying larger reserves are stronger, but I think it was discussed before and the conclusions were that smaller reserves where stronger. They are manufactured exactly the same. The difference between a PD-143R and a PD-126R is the amount of fabric between seams. I am not saying smaller reserves are better. I just don't like the argument that small canopys are more likely to blow up. My main is 60 sq ft and is not built w/ as much re-inforcement as most reserves and it hasn't blown up. It has opened harder than any reserve on more than one occassion. Hook

Do not let up toggle pressure on one side. Carving in the swoop requires more flare from both toggles, similar to a flare turn. You have to pull one toggle and/or harness steer to get the carve going and flare more because you now have a horizontal component to your lift. In an aircraft, to turn and maintain altitude and airspeed requires more power and back pressure on the controls. If you do not add power to to the aircraft, it will slow in the turn. Quade, want to help on this one? Hook

I'm in it for the money ;-) Hook

OK, I may not be the first one to come up w/ this, but I haven't seen one before. Here it is: A small adjustable wrench w/ a neon pink flag, and a staight stainless steel closing pin on a lanyard of type IIA (coreless closing loop materal. I made it look good and finger-trapped each end of the lanyard. So now when I lossen rapide links or tighten them, all I need is one tool. The ss pin is short enough and the wrench small enough to prevent over-torqueing the link. Hook

I agree that someone interested in high peformance canopys (or anyone for that matter) should start learning immeidately, but wait to get into more aggressive flight maneuvers until they have the right tool for the job. A piper cub is a great aircraft to learn basic abilities, but practicing serious acrobatics wouldn't be safe. As for a carving turn being safer, I disagree, but my reasons apply more to me than most people. Here's why: I can overfly my swoop lane on my downwind. I don't lose sight of my swoop lane or have to head switch. I can get deeper into the front risers and hold them longer for a longer/faster dive. If I am a little low, I don't hang on the doubles as long, but I still swoop where I intended to, in a carving turn, if you have to "dish out" you are not on the heading you intended to be. That can be fixed to a point w/ a carve in the swoop, but you still take up more lateral airspace. I use a very narrow sliver of airspace in my hooks I have carved my VX and snap hook it regularly. I go faster w/ an aggressive front riser turn than a carve. A police officer friend of mine brought his laser gun out to the DZ when I had 10 jumps on the VX. He clocked me at 93 mph in the dive and 78 mph in the swoop. I am sure I am not going slower by snapping the hook. Hook

My concern w/ the catapult is in the event the reserve is fired while the jumper is on their back (a scenario that makes a reserve horseshoe possible that the catapult is supposed to be designed to fix), what is one PC goes on one side of the jumper and one PC launches on the other side of the jumper. Now they are working against each other and the jumper is in real trouble. I am not saying this is what would happen, just my concern. Hook

free- I think you're out of your depth on this one. Hook

The 1000, 500, and 250 numbers are for reference. You can't say start your down wind you are kinda low, crosswind when you are even lower and your final when you low. The numbers are just a starting point. Hook

Nicely done Chuck, well deserved. Hook

Time slows down and everything feels very peaceful. Details are very sharp and clear, every litle noise stands out, every sensation is felt, and images are forever burned into memory. Now where did I put my BASE rig.......... Hook

Chuck- we must be cousins or something :-) I have been using the "runway" thing to explain set-ups for awhile. Ramon- Like Chuck, I fly down an imaginary "runway". I pick a runway that is longer than I'll ever need on both ends. Then I fly down the runway until I am at the right altitude and hook away. Being able to swoop from point "A" to point "B" is secondary to starting the turn at the right altitude. Get the sight picture down pat, it should look the same (except for small enviromental changes that affect the recovery arc) every time. Once that is perfect, then accuracy comes into play, but never at the cost of altitude. I like the harder 180 for accuracy and to swing out farther from under the canopy. It is a trade off, the harder the hook, the more "G"'s you pull which kills speed, but (up to a point) the hardr the turn the more swung out and more dive and there fore speed you will get. The jury is still out on which method gives better performance. i have considered trying differnet approaches and I have done my share of 360's and 270's, but I am very comfortable and consistant (very important) w/ my 180's. So I chose not to change. Guess I am getting old :-) Same reason I decided not to switch to rear riser flares. Not enough payoff for the risk for me, but I am not competeting w/ anyone except myself :-) I nail a front riser and stop the turn w/ the other front riser, hang on the doubles and I get as small as I can for reduced drag and the longest dive I can get. So I don't tend to over or under turn. worry about accuracy later. Make sure you aren't creating a traffic conflict for others and concentrate on altitude. Starting your swoop 50 ft farther down the runway isn't a big deal and no one will know the difference anyway (as long as your select your "runway" correctly). Starting your swoop 50 ft too low and everyone will know it was unintentional :-) As for the riser pressure I have found that if I get into the doubles soon enough and deep enough, I can hold them longer. Hope this helps. Hook

Executing a good approach is the direct result of planning a good approach. On the ground, before the skydive, check out the landing area. Look for the wind direction indicators (windsocks, tetrahedrons, wind arrows, etc). Predict where you will most likely encounter turbulence. Check the upper winds so you know where you will most likely be exiting and opening. Plan your approach to avoid flying over obstacles below 1,000 feet, leaving “outs” in the event traffic forces you to alter your approach, and that avoids turbulence. If the wind is light, have several approach plans in mind in case the wind shifts or your opening point is what you expected it to be. A good approach plan will have you holding just up wind of the landing area until approximately 1,000 feet. Then fly with the wind to just downwind of your target. Be careful not to put any obstacles between you and the landing area. If the wind where to increase or you had to turn away to avoid traffic or you simply come up short, you could land on an obstacle. Turn your crosswind leg. The more wind there is, the more you will have to “crab” into the wind to prevent being pushed farther down wind. On windier days, turn your crosswind leg closer to the landing area. At approximately 200 feet, turn onto your final approach leg. At this point you should be set up to land where you planned on landing. Do not get “tunnel vision” on your final approach. The landing area is the most congested airspace during your canopy flight. Everyone is trying to land in the same landing area as you. Relax, and keep looking around for traffic. Be conscious of the possibility of someone waiting in brakes for you to land. There have been a number of fatalities and injuries from canopy collisions on final approach. The better prepared you are for your approach, the easier it will be to fly a good approach. Hook

Funny that someone would bring up groundrush. Because just the other night I had the most incredible groundrush I have ever experienced. I exited off an antennea from 1200ft ish, in a cloud. Couldn't see the ground at exit. The ground slowly came into view in a haze, then it completely cleared up. Crystal clear and VERY, VERY close. I pitched immediately, wondering if I had waited a bit too long. Obvisiouly it opened in time (250-300ft -ish). Until it cleared up, the ground seemed so far away because of the water vapor in the air, then it was rushing to meet me at an absolutely incredible speed. It looked like a movie special effect. Hook

I'm w/ Bill. Get into some carving and when comfortable and have fully explored carves, downsize (if he wants more speed) and start all over. I would recommend not getting into full blown hooks until on a fully elliptical at a higher wingloading. Hook

First off- I have been wrong before and I'm positive I will be wrong again. A doctor friend of mine told me that when he was in med school that they told him 30% of what we will teach you is wrong, we just don't know which 30%. Second- Chuck, you are right, you can swoop anything. I don't think we are really disagreeing. Everything you said is right, my point is before someone gets into radical hook turns, be they carving 180's or snap 180's, they should be on an elliptical at a 1.5-1.7 wing loading. That is my opinion. Could I get away w/ hooking a sabre 210?, sure. Could I do it safely 100/100 times? I am not sure I could. I know (for a fact) I can hook my VX 100/100 times w/o successful results. It think the tolerances are too tight and I would eventually hook it just a little too low....along w/ getting lousy landings sometime from hooking it too high. Is it possible I am just so used to hooking it from 700-800 ft that hooking it lower under a larger canopy is just something I am not used to? Sure, but I think it has more to do w/ the tolerances. I have had this conversation w/ another VX pilot (a good one) and this is the theory we came up w/. That's the cool thing about this forum, there are several high speed canopy pilots here from different parts of the country w/ different canopy experiences. People can read our opinions, ask questions, and then take what they like from each of us and make (semi :-))-informed decisions. If someone posts something that someone else disagrees w/ it is great for other people to sit back and read both sides and then decide for themselves. I don't expect anyone to take my opinion and make it law, but just consider it. Hook

I agree that front riser carves at lower wingloadings are ok, because the recovery arc is as much a factor w/ a carving turn. I think carving even a large canopy isn't that dangerous because you are not commited to penduluming back underneath the canopy nearly as much as a hard front riser to the double fronts max speed hook. I have front risered a bunch of canopys and at less than 1.5 wingloading I don't feel comfortable w/ the risk level of a max dive hook to landing. The start altitude window is small and if you are a tad high, the canopy planes out level w/ the ground w/o any toggle input, slows down to less than normal full flight and then dives into the ground trying to regain airspeed. This leaves in a low altitude, w/ little airspeed to trade for flare. I have had my Safire 189 climb w/o toggle input after a riser hook turn resulting in a solid landing because I had to sink it in at the end. So, in my opinion, learning high performance landings should start, if at all, at a 1.5-1.7 wingloading, w/ straight in front riser approaches, working up to carving, etc. If they are used to normal straight in at that wingloading, it won't take too long to get used to the higher double front straight in approach, and then they are ready to move to a 90 degree carving approach. Then I would recommend moving to 180's, then to more of a rapid 180. Nice and slow, of course. I am not saying you are wrong, just that this is my opinion, take it for what it is worth :-) Hook

I think i read about those tests, they used some pretty big and similar canopys and didn't get in all the jumps they wanted to. I think it was testing for student type canopys. If not, I would love to hear about it. Someone on here must know where I can look them up at???? Hook Hook

Bill- I completely agree. I have taught both straight AFF and 3 tandems+15 solo instructor freefall jumps. As long as they tandems were conducted properly, the student was light years ahead of an AFF student. The wingloadings were from .9 to 1.1 w/ 0-P 9 cell mains. The results were amazing, resulting in the graduate being able to downsize safely much faster than is traditional. My argument was against the idea that w/ todays training and unlimited class room time, it still wouldn't be prudent to put an AFF level 1 under a Stiletoo 107 at 1.4ish. Nowadays, airline pilots can be certified in a new aircraft they have never actually flown. All the work is done in classrooms and high-speed simulators. This isn't the same as putting someone that has never flown before in a classroom and a simulator, then handing them the keys to a Cessna 172, a nice little diploma, and a license. Hook

Tad- I was one of Shane's instructors. He was trained, and practiced in his training to perform a "flat turn" with toggles, if he found himself in a "need to turn, but I am low" situation. This was, without a doubt, an intentional hook turn executed too low. Why would someone, finding themselves downwind, at low altitude, waste the time to find both front dive loops, perform a front riser turn (which he also had been taught about), which loses more altitude than a toggle turn, then pull down on the other front riser to keep the canopy in a dive, (which he was also explained to him)?. Shane understood how the risers worked, what they did, and the dangers involved. He knew front riser turns were to be done at altitude only and explained the danger of low turns. There is tremendous peer pressure in skydiving today to downsize canopys and perform high performance landings, ie. hook turns. The instructors fly small x-braced canopys and so do all the "high-speed" skydivers. The challange is for the individual skydiver to make sound deciscions and heed the advice of the better canopy pilots, instructors, and the S & TA. Sometimes the new skydiver will not accept the advice, sometimes it isn't offered. The bottom line is that w/ the current system, attitude, atmosphere, training, and lack of regulation, these incidents will continue to happen. I knew Shane well. Hook

"Wow... Derek, have you seen Rusty (Vest's) work on the same idea..... " No. "It seems you imply a bi-plane cutaway... you should spell out the canopy(ies) configuration when you cutaway. STUDENTS... do not cutaway from a bi-plane -main-in-front, reserve-trailing configuration, the released main can destroy your reserve... Can you be more specific, Derek?" Of course. The "reserve" was in front w/ the "main" behind the reserve in a Bi-plane configuration. The difference from the classical Bi-plane is that the reserve eneded up in front of the main, allowing for a clean cutaway of the main. I would not say that there would never be an occasion to cutaway from a classic Bi-plane (main in front). I haven't seen very much research beyond what the PIA has on their web page on 2 canopy out situations. I think that 2 canopy out teachings vary from DZ to DZ, instructor to instructor. I was taught in my FJC to, "Cutaway from one good canopy but don't cutaway from two good canopys." Hook

No, Richard arranged for video, but the video guy was busy. Richard lurked the jump and was all diappointed when everything didn't go to hell:-) Hook

Good news! I deployed the Stiletto out the door, then deployed the PD-170. The PD inflated, flew up behind the Stiletto, then to a side-by-side, then to an almost Bi-plane. The Stilettos center cell rested against the left steering line of the PD and it flew just fine. I made some gentle turns w/ the PD and the Stiletto followed nicely. I released the brakes on the Pd and they flew together even better. Eventually I released the Stiletto and it cleared w/o a hitch. So with a difference of 73 sq. ft. two canopies flew great together. The PD seemed to be able to absorb being pushed around by the Stiletto more than the Safire did. It seemed like the PD is trimmed more nose down (I'll have to check on this) than the Safire, which also helped them fly together. I could have landed w/o injury at any point in the deployment on the PD. It appears that a fairly significant difference in performance between a main and a reserve causes no negative effects. I plan on doing a few more jumps to make sure, but I feel confident that this latest jump was a very good test. If I left anything out, feel free to ask. Hook

So would you suggest that someone learn how to hok turn under a Fury 220? I did not suggest that someone downsize to a 1.5-1.7 wingloading and go for it. Downsize as you are ready and put off hook turns until you reach a wingloading of 1.5-1.7 (and elliptical) and are completely competent at that wingloading. I believe this gives the best trade-off between speed and recovery arc. Hook