davelepka

Given the size of your wing, and the wingloading you'll end up with when you strap an adult human to the bottom of it, I'm not sure how much slower you think it's going to fly. Given that the body flight aspect is going to be the key to your whole control system, using aircraft based launches will only serve to make your pilot that much more preparred for a take-off or landing. Without that type of practice, you have a wing that you have never flown, and a pilot that has never flown any wing of that sort, let alone the one that you're trying to get off the ground. You're stacking the deck against yourself, your pilot, and your project. You could have flight time in your pilots log book, and reams of data on the performance of your wing, but for some unknown reason you're choosing to bypass both of those options. This is why I doubt the success of the project.

Nobody is suggesting that you take away the idea of taking off and landing, just that you come at it from a more sensible place. Take a supersonic plane, for example. Many parts of the plane, it's design and systems will taken from already proven aircraft. If you're trying to build a supersonic plane, why re-invent the landing gear? Why not use one off a proven plane, and be able to cross that off the checklist of things to design and test. The problem here is that you have a wing you're not even sure will fly, or how it will handle, and the first thing you plan to do with it is a take-off. How many pilots have been killed in take-off related incidents? The prudent course of action would be to take advantage of proven concepts, like launching from a plane and landing with a parachute, to work out as may of the bugs as possible so when you do go for your first take-off and landing, there are far fewer questions regarding the fundmental performance of the wing. With the existance of commonly available air-data loggin devices, you could do a great deal of testing and research with regards to slow flight, level flight, and landing flares, all while several thousand feet in the air, with a parachute to facilitate the eventual landing. All I get from your response indicates that you're not serious about this project. You might want it to happen, but you're not looking at what is clearly the path to success (or failure without injury), you're looking at some pie-in-the-sky scenario where you just build a wing, and fly off into the sunset (literally). If you were serious, you would be willing to abandon what you 'want' and do what the project 'needs'.

You have indicated that you will use an 'emergency' parachute of some sort, and with this in mind, you would be very foolish not to have a testing program that invloves aircraft-based launches and parachute based landings. It no secret that the most dangerous phase of any flight is the take-off and landing, and with the use of aircraft/parachutes, you put yourself in the position of being able to test every other aspect of your wing before moving to take-off and landing. You can prove that it will fly and that you can control it at all intended speeds, most importantly the lower end of the speed range, where take-offs and landings happen. Your project is way out there on the far end of aviation, with very little in the way of proven concepts or information to use in the design or build phase. On top of that, you are going to be VERY exposed in the case of any type of incident, no matter how minor. Imagine a slight low speed instability, or a gust of wind on landing, and one wing-tip just 'brushes' the ground at 60 or 80 knots on a take-off or landing. Are you OK with the idea of tumbling down a runway at 80 knots with that thing on your back? All the more reason to have hours of in-air flight time before getting it anywhere near the ground. Look at wingsuits, for example. How long did it take to build a suit that could fly slow enough to 'land' in a pile of boxes? Even then, the suits were aroudn for years before someone put in the jumps, and developed the skill where they were confident they could fly it slow enough, and at the right time, to pul off the 'stunt'. It also took some crazy balls, but the development of the skills and equipment came first, and they both happened with the help of aircraft and parachutes.

Unless you had prior knowledge of a problem, your word was good. In your case, having several kids learn to drive with the car, I'm guessing you got more than your fair share of use out of the car. On top of that, I get the impression that you could live without the $1100 if you really needed to, so I get why you would extend the guy a refund to 'even out the books'. For arguments sake, I know that in Ohio (and every other state, I think) any used car, motorcycle, RV, ATV, boat or trailer sale is 'as-is' unless specifed otherwise in writing. Even so, anytime I sell any of the above, I make sure to write that it's an 'as-is sale, with no warrranty' on the bill of sale, and I have the buyer sign a copy for me to keep. For that reason, unless you're comfortable taking a chance, or are an auto-mechanic yourself, you should always arrange for a professional to inspect any used car before you buy. For $50 to $75, you can get an 'expert' opinion, and that's cheap insurance. I had a similar situation years ago, I sold an old Buick that developed a habit of stalling at stop lights. I told the guy that it stalled from time to time, and it even stalled when he backed out of my driveway for the test drive, but he bought it anyway. Called me a couple weeks later talking about an oxygen sensor, or something like that, but there was nothing I could do for him. It was an 'as-is' sale, he knew the deal, not to mention I was broke and had already spent the money (most likely on a camera or canopy).

It's 40% off the 'retail' price, and nobody pays retail. Dealers tend to give between 20% and 30% off of the 'retail' price as an everyday business practice. It's like the MSRP on cars. They make them artifically high so the dealers can adverstise '$2000 off MSRP!!!". Here's the good news, for $600 or less, you can find a used rig that will be better than a Dolphin and less than half the price of a wings. Pretty much any Vector 3, Javelin, Infinity, Mirage, or Wings made after 1999 or 2000 would be a nice upgrade. I won't speak to your intended downsize as I have no idea of when you're planning on actually doing it. All I can say, and this goes for any downsize, is don't be stupid and find a staff member at your DZ who doesn't like you or downsizing, and ask them if you're ready. If they agree, you might be ready, otherwise stick with what you have.

OK, I gave you some knowledge, and you replied this - Pick your poison dickhead, you can have it the way you want, or you can have the truth. In this case, it seems, you cannot have both as they are not the same thing.

Just so you're clear, the rules are whatever the DZO says they are. It's his sandbox, and what he says, goes. Along those same lines, I can only assume that you have not reached the 200 jump point, and with that in mind, you would be well served to listen to what your (or any) DZO has to say. You have less than 200 jumps, they own a DZ. Who would you guess would know better?

That looks scary as shit. The terrible place to be is with a parachute in an aircraft, too low to exit safely, and that's what that is. Sure, it's only 1 ft off the ground, but if there's a mechanical failure and that bird starts to spin or roll over, you're not getting or away from that thing anytime soon. None of this is mentioning the massive waste of tach time hovering there while what appears to be a large group of jumpers goes through that 'exercise'. There's no reason that couldn't have been done with the helo on the ground and the pilot observing the exit coordination from outside the cabin.

It all depends on care and maintenance, but if you take care of a rig, it will literally last for 1000's of jumps. If you're looking to buy a used rig, and concerned about the age or jump numbers, having a rigger inspect it will reveal a lot about the rig and how it was cared for. If you're looking at a new rig and wondering how long it will last, take care of it and it will be jumping longer than you will (probably).

Just to clarify, knowing who the rig is comign from is less important than knowing what the rig really is, and that's what the rigger is for. The riggers role is more than just mediator for the deal. Truth is, anyone can mediate the deal, provided that both parties trust their 'business integrity'. The rigger is there to inspect the gear, and that's how you find out 'what' it really is. For starters, they check that the gear is airworthy, meaning it's safe to jump. Additionally, they can check the serial numbers against various stolen gear databases, and they can check for any applicable ADs or SBs (mods the factory suggests/requires for safety) and if they have been done to the rig. Don't ever buy any part of a rig used (main, reserve, container, AAD) without a rigger inspecting it. Helmets, jumpsuits, altimeters, etc are one thing, any part of a rig you need an inspection to really be sure of what you're getting. Check out Chutingstar gear store. They do an escrow deal where they handle the gear and payments for private party sales, and all you have to pay for is the inspection. You and the seller send them the gear and the money, they will inspect, report, and then ship the gear and money to the 'new owners' if all is good. It's an easy way to buy gear from someone you don't know.

$3500 is a good budget. You can get a really nice rig, or a pretty nice rig with a Cypres (or other AAD, but get a Cypres if you want an AAD). Don't limit yourself to SoCal, although there is probably a good chance of finding a rig there. Anything you buy needs to be inspected by a rigger, and sellers should understand this and be willing to accomodate you. Test jumps are 'iffy'. Unless you plan to take full responsibility for loss or damage (in writing) I would not expect a seller to let you jump anything. You could try it on for harness, but the serial number and a call to the manufacturer with your measurements should tell you what you need to know. Check out the classifieds here, and post any ads that peak your interest. We can let you know what we think, and someone might be able to vouch for the seller.

The two small rings that are attched to the risers (and the riser) gets jacked around so that they end up 'inserted' into the big ring. If they get pushed sideways when this happens, it can be tricky to get them out and back to normal. There's 'just enough' clearnace there to get them in there, and if you try to pull them out the wrong way, it will get 'stuck'. It's temporary, and can be pulled through eventually. It's obvious when it happens because the middle ring is inside of the big rig and the riser is pointing straight out from the rig. Even a half assed gear check will reveal it. Now if it happened in freefall, due to a bad harness grip, it would be a real problem. It may or may not clear in the course of an opening, and it probably would not release if you needed to cutaway if the opening didn't straighten it out.

What's funny is that I thought the crash was going to happen when he did that first 'wing over' at the start of the race. Not because it looked too scary, but because I knew it was going to crash at some point, and seemed like the most likely time. Guess I was half right.

I say you should learn how to read. I listed some differences that you could easily see from the pics in a post upthread. The visual differences are not counting any of the things you can't see from the pics, like exact measurements, material specs and internal construction. All restate this again, how different do you exepct two canopies in the same class to be? How different is a Velo from a JVX or FX or Xoas 21? How about a Pliot and a Sabre2? They're both 9 cell, semi-eilpitical, ZP canopies aimed at beginner to intermediate jumpers. Despite being virtually indentical in their physical description, as a posted stated above, the open and fly very differenly. Why is that? Because the things that you can't see, like the exact measurements, material specs, and itnernal construction are different, resulting in a very different wing. Nobody is pointing at those canopies as being 'rip-offs' of each other, despite the fact that each factory has unlimited access to the other wing for inspection, jumps, and measuring. But in this case, because two parachute companies come up with similar designs when trying to build a canopy for the same purpose, suddenly it's a case of plagarism, and everyone accusing the largest parachute company on earth of not being able to develop their own wing. How does that make any sense?

I wish I could help you out with your survey, but I don't use packers. I think a pack job runs $6 at my DZ. Beyond that, I wanted to comment on the use of 'beer' as a tip that everyone seems so fond of. Let's keep in mind that packing is work. Hard, physical labor. Anyone who is packing for pay is there for the money, and I would guess that the more money they make the better. So if you wnat to tip your packer, go with cash, and if they want to spend it on beer, they can. If they want to spend it on something else, they can do that too. You can only do one thing with beer. Think about the reality for a second. Let's say a packer has 5 sport jumpers they pack for on a given day. If each of them rounds up their payment at the end of the day, and gives them an extra $4 or $5, that's $20/$25 more in their pocket. If everyone gives them a sixer of beer, that's no extra cash, and now they have 30 beers. Unless you have a real drinking problem, nobody needs 30 beers per day. If you tip cash, that turns into $40 or $50 over the course of a weekend, and that's good money that can really add up. Remember, the only reason to pack is for the money. Do you think your packer wants an extra $200/mo, or 240 beers/mo? If you want to bring them a cold beer at the end of the day, by all means, do so. That would be appreciated for sure, but as a replacement for a cash tip (even a 6-pack), maybe give that another thought. Now when it comes to an instructor/coach who spent the day jumping with you, I would still say cash, but a good 6-pack isn't as bad as when you're dealing with your packer. There's a chance that the instructor/coach is doing the work for the love of the sport. Jumping all day is way more enjoyable than packing all day, I know a bunch of financially secure people who will spend all weekend 'working hard' as an instructor/coach because they like it, but I can't say the same about one single packer. On top of that, if the guy spent the day jumping with you, the tip you give is the only tip they're going to get. So if they made $100/$150 jumping with you, getting a $5 is not a big deal, but a 6-pack would be more useful. If they're only getting one sixer, and you crack one open with them, that's where 'beer' becomes a realisitic tip for services rendered.

Please note in the photo that the jumper appears to be wearing a long-sleeve shirt and jeans on a skydive where he intended to dock with other jumpers. In that case, you need to be sure to specify where and how you want others to take grips on you. I don't like the grip shown in the pic, for the reasons stated. I also don't like any harness grips near my handles, and don't like anything on an adjustable strap (chest or leg) as it opens the door for that adjustment to be altered mid-jump. For those reasons I either make sure that I am the one docking on the other jumper, or that I provide them with a specific spot for taking grips.

If your stuff is in good shape, then there's no need to spring for new canopies just to compete. For the record, Vectran and the 500 HMA both need to be inspected and changed on a regular basis, of course it's just less regular than the 300 series stuff. That's not really true. The best free coaching at your home DZ can be bought with beer. That's where someone who knows you and wants to do you a favor will help you out and coach you for free. They would do it with or without the beer, the beer is just there because you're not a shithead. I would be so bold to say that you could get better, more specific coaching if you hired one of the current top 5 swoopers for some one-on-one time. As good as the people at your DZ might be, unless they're currently top 5, they don't know as much about swooping or competing in the current environment than the top 5 as it sits right now. Rules and techniques are constantly evolving, so current participation and suceess would good signs of how much someone can help you. That said, no disrespect to whoever has been helping you up to this point. If you feel like your skills are sound, then spend your canopy money on a Holiday Inn Express at all of your comps you travel to. I stayed in one last summer that really impressed me with how nice it was for the money.

Here's what I don't get, what's wrong with or different with old faithful than a new wing? If you're doing competition level swooping, I hope you're keeping your wing maintained with fresh lines and regular inspections (and not igonoring any problems). If you are, the new and old wings should perform the same. Save your new wing money for more training jumps, or better yet, coached training jumps.

In your example, you have to grab the front risers and use them to lever yourself into a different position under the wing. So what you're describing is more than just leaning fore/aft in the harness, it's a combination of actions that do add up to a change in the wing. However, if you look at the sole action of leaning fore/aft in the harness, the answer remains 'no' that it will not effect the wing.

That, is my point. We don't know, yet you're willing to cast PD as thieves and on-par with Chinese knock-off manufacturers.

You say this based on knowledge of the openings and flight characteristics of both the Petra and Peregrine? Again, the S2 and Pilot are quite simialr. Both 9-cell, non x-brace, both semi-eliptical, both ZP, both offered with simialr line types, both aimed at the beginer/intermediate jumper. Of coruse, you see them as different because of opening or flight characteristics. Here's a pic of each, you tell me they don't look the same - http://www.skydivechicago.com/Forums/forumid/5/postid/1754/view/topic http://www.dropzone.com/photos/Detailed/Canopy_Flight/PD_Sabre_2__118568.html So they look the same, are built of similar materials and design, and are aimed at the same customer, but they're completely different, right? Why is the Petra/peregrine any different? Very similar from the outside to the untrained eye, but easily as different as the Pilot and Sabre2.

My jump numbers or experience are not a factor here. I haven't jumped or even seen either one in person, so I'm just going off of common sense. Again, let's use the tire example. A car guy would know the differences between a wide, sticky, high performance tire, and one for an economy car. To a chick (for the most part), they're both just 'tires', round, black, and they belong on a car. What it comes down to is the techincal and very specific differences between the two that set them apart. So looking at the two canopies, without knowledge of the technical aspects of the two, you cannot make the sort of judgement that you're making. Well, you can, but logic is not on your side. Let's really 'look' at them, in the side-by-side pic that was posted. Here's what I see as 'different' - The leading egde of the upper skin on the Petra comes down to a point in between the cells, while the PD canopy (not sure if it's a Peregrine) has the upper/lower skins meet in a horizontal line. - The cell openings on the Petra are a symetrical diamond/oval shape, while the PD canopy cell openings are curved along the lower edge and more triangular along the upper edge. -The side of the Petra looks to be a straight line, and meets the tail in a sharp 90 degree corner, while the PD canopy appears to 'bulge' along the side toward the tail, and the rear corner is more rounded than 'square'. So there are three difference right there, and we're still not talking about the patterns, materials, and internal construction. Just for shits and giggles, let's take the Sabre2 and the Pilot, two canopies that are aimed at the same market segment and that have never been called copies of one another. What are the differences between the two?

You say this based on what? The fact that they're both built of nylon, are rough;y rectangular, and have lines attaching them to the risers? Along that same logic, I could say that a Jetta is a straight cospy of a Civic. They both have 4 wheels, an engine in the front, and steer via a circualr wheel located by one of the front seats, no? Unless you have studied the patterns and construction manual for both canopies, you don't know what you're talking about. Much like the car example, the exact shape the individual parts can make a big difference. An economy tire and a race tire are very silimar, with the only difference being the size and rubber compound. The exact shape of the wing and material used makes a legitimate difference, and is enough to make the two canopies 'different' unless they are exactly the same. The construction is another story. The original x-brace, the Excalibur, was a great canopy but it was too hard to build them efficiently and turn a profit. Brian Germain ran into the same problem with his Sensei, it was x-braced and airlocked, and too complicated to build to make sense (and a great canopy from what I heard). The point is that just being able to put a canopy together is an achievement in itself. So again, unless the contruction manual was included with the Petra that PD 'stole', and they followed it step-by-step, then PD did the work of figuring how to build their own wing. Let's get real people, parachutes are all very similar. Every one on the market to today is a ram-air style wing, with a slider and lineset, all looking very similar to the Cruise Lite I used to jump as a student. What's different? The size, shape, material specs, and construction technuiques are new, but the basic 'platform' is the same. Want to prove that PD stole something? Show that the patterns, materials, and construction techniques are exactly the same, and then you have an argument. Short of that, it's just the nature of the beast.

No. The risk they accept, legally, is risk that occurs during the course of a jump performed within the standard industry practice. If you, as a DZO or TI or camera flyer, does everything within that standard, and an accident occurs, then you will be protected by the waiver the pax signed. However, if you go outside of the standard, and engage in easily avoidable actions that increase the level of risk and lead to an accident, then you are negligent, and the waiver will not save you. The risk that the pax assumes is that which is within the standard industry practice. They are there based on the idea that you (the staff) are professionals, and capable fo making the safest skydive possible, and under those conditions they are willing to accept the risk of making a jump. If they understood before the jump that the staff intended to act in a way that added undue risk to that could easily be avoided, they might not choose to sign the waiver and make the jump, the same way a judge would nullify the waiver after-the-fact when it was determined that the staff did indeed behave in that manner. The end result is that one way or another, they don't sign on for that sort of risk.

The mechanics of the situation might be 'cringe-worthy', with the camera flyer down low and the tandem pair falling down the trap door towrd him. However, the reality might have been such that it wasn't a big deal. The lens might have made it look worse than it is, if you shoot a wider lens than the guy in the video, all of his stuff is going to look 'really close' to you. Additionally, you don't know if maybe the camera guy was tucking up and picking up speed as the drouge was released, falling though is own 'trap door'. The bigger concern, I think, is if the guy was dead-nuts under the tandem. In that case, the camera guy would be taking his own 'cone of death' and flying it right in the tandem pairs face. You cannot ever be directly below a tandem when you're backflying. If you have a premature deployment of either canopy, you'll end up killing all three of you, and the tandem pax didn't sign on for that.