davelepka

Which one is it? Sucks when people tell you what you don't to hear. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? That changes everything. I thought you were one those guys who wanted to get busted up early on in their jumping. I'm glad you made the distinction, and set yourself apart from those other guys. Don't forget to tell reality, it has a way of not giving a shit what you want.

I'm not sure how this would produce a different result than correcting with the rear risers.

Both brakes were still stowed when you recovered the canopy? If it was still turning after the line twists were out, a fired brake would be my first guess. If not, are you sure there wasn't an additional malfunction, maybe a line over or tension knot? This could have contributed to the line twists, and provided the un-stopable spin. Another possibility is that the jumper kicked out of the twists, gave a half-assed attempt to stop the spin, gave up and chopped it. In the end, the jumper attemted to unfurl a clever fabric wing while falling at a high speed through the air. Shit is bound to go wrong sooner or later.

OK, I just noticed that your post was over a year old. By now you've jumped your camera and found out for yourself. OK really, Divinswoop has groopies? If you're number one, how many are there?

You'll have a problem if you're built like an 8 year old girl. If your helmet fits properly, and your neck is larger than a pencil, you'll have no problem flying the camera around. I would take the time to learn how to jump your camera, and how to freefly seperately. Combining them will only slow your progress, and have you whining about the wind pushing around your camera.

I posted a lengthy run down of different types of tracking dives, and their pros and cons, you can do a search for it (it was within the last couple months). In short, first or last out is a good spot, as they really only have to avoid one quadrant to be safe (the one toward jumprun). There are other ways to work them into a jumprun, but it relies heavily on a leader who is 100% on where they are, and where they are going, and followers who can stay tight, and can understand and implement the breakoff plan without fail.

This advice sounds like it's more for accuracy with your swoop, with no change in the degree of turn. There is a difference between entry to the pattern. and your initiation point or altitude. Your initiation altitude will vary with the degree of turn.

Thats a good question, and you are correct, it does depend on the size of the AC, and the winds for that day. All of my four way video at my current DZ has been out of an Otter, and the winds must have been light enough that we were downwind of the DZ on opening. Edit: This had slipped my mind, but this also applies the first freefly group after any RW group. You will most likely open before they do, and should be aware of where you're going under canopy until you have a visual on them. All of this goes without saying that canopy/canopy collisions can happen at any time, and need to be avoided at all cost, but that seems a little obvious. It seems that many jumpers seem to feel as iff freefall is one thing, and canopy flight is another, even though they both take place in the same airspace at roughly the same time.

I was reading the thread about tracking dives, and the OP said he opened above a canopy from the previous group (the first group out). When questioned, the jumper respnoded, "I was just heading back to the DZ". This got me thinking. Most of my jumps are either tandem/student video, freefly, or tracking (where I exit last). In any case, I'm always past the halfway point of jumprun, where I can open and fly towards the DZ, and I'm not flying under the previous group. HOWEVER, when I get sucked into doing some four-way video, and I'm in the first or second group out, I can't help but open up, and either face away from the DZ or fly perpendicular to jumprun, as I look up the jumprun for the next group to fall past me (I dump at break off). After I see them, I'll turn in, and fly back to the DZ. So, for all of the RW guys, is it just me? Does anyone else up in the front of the exit order open up, and scan the skies above for jumpers to come raining down on you? I don't really have a fear of a collision where I open up, but the ideas of flying toward the DZ without visual confirmation of the group after me scares the crap out of me.

(Barry White voice) Oh yeah.....

OK, lets just end this right now. Mirage has a strappy seat thingy you can get on your rig if you wish. It holds your legstraps in place so they could never slip far enough for you to slide out, and it's made of two straps of some sort of beefy material so breakage is unlikely. It's out there, and it's not top secret, and it's not hard or expensive for a rigger to put something similar on any rig. I also don't belive it's under any sort of patend, so other manufacturers are free to offer a similar product.

This whole discussion is retarded. Wind this, gravity that, the angle of your dangle. Your canopy will open downwind of you in the relative wind. Period. The PC will be downwind of the canopy in the relative wind. Period. If your canopy should stall, or surge on opening, and generates relative wind toward the nose, you may get your PC up there. You could launch yourself skyward with a giant catapult, and dump on the way up, and your canopy will open underneath you (what happens after inflation is another story).

I know a guy who was on his back for awhile after doing the same thing. If you have a packer, fire him. If you pack for yourself, wake up, open your eyes, and pay attention to what you are doing.

Doesn't this reinforce my position? We know that the WL are equal, so the thrust issue moot. I have shown several ways where the larger canopy and pilot will have a reduced amount of drag in realtion to the smaller canopy. Wouldn't this equal better performance? I didn't read your links, but from what I know about the Reynolds number, it's an adjustment factor for wind tunnel testing where you can use a very small model of an airfoil to test its properties at very high airspeeds without needing the tunnel to produce those speeds. My gut reaction to its application toward this argument is that the difference in size and airspeeds between a big and a small canopy are not significant enough to make those principals relevant.

Some people have no idea how to track. This shouldn't be news to anyone. In 4 way, some teams will take it donw to 3.5k for break off, and take a short track. Depending on the speed of your canopy, you only need so much separation. Also, if a 4 way breaks off, one or two fo them will be on the line of flight, and I don't want them covering to much ground. As for tracking dives, many of them are not max track positions, in fact very few are. That would be like doing head down at 220mph. You may be bale to stay with it, but if you get out of it, you'll never get back. Don't think that tracking dives make you an expert at going a long way (but yeah, they do help). Did I mention that many people have no idea how to track?

What the fuck? No hanger? Cheap bastard.....

What is your experience level? How many jumps do have on your current canopy? What other canopies have you jumped, and how many jumps have you put on them? Also, why are you in such a need for front riser performance? Have you exhausted the other capabilities of your canopy? To the point that you are ready for a smaller canopy? What would you be doing with the 'improved' front riser performance of the smaller canopy anyways?

Why? Are the cells on the smaller wing so small that they don't allow that many air molecules through? If the loading per square foot is the same, then the only factors to consider are drag created by other components. The bag and PC on a bigger canopy will be almost indectical in size to a smaller canopy. The lines will be longer on a bigger wing, but not as proportionally bigger as the wing (a 200 sq ft canopy's lines are not twice as long as a 100 sq footers). The frontal area of the pilot will also be proportionally smaller; when poeple get bigger, they tend to be rounder, hiding more of their area from the relative wind. It the end, most of what's discussed here is hypothetical, as most jumpers do not posses the aeronautical degrees you speak of, and if they did, they would be smart enough to realize that short of wind tunnel testing, canopy aerodynamics are largely hypothetical becasue in the real world testing that we can perform, the variables from weather and the pilot combined with a limited amount of relaible instrumentation makes any data somewhat less than factual. However, I have jumped a shitload of canopies, and swooped a shitlaod of canopies in different sizes with WL's from 2.5+ to under 1.0, which in skydiving is pretty much how you gain the authority to speak of such matters. Now respect my author-i-ty!

If he was tumbling, he wouldn;t be able to do 800 times in a row. Maintaining the speed to keep line tension is key to making that work, and not dying. That shit is crazy, and those canopies are so different from ours in how they work and what they can do. If there was some way to get a canopy that could loop and then dive 1000 ft and swoop, THAT would be something.

You should be your own rabbit. I had fun beating some of my buddies, sure, but I can tell you that when I flew a crappy round, if I was ahead of or behind the other guys didn't matter. Where I was in relation to my last round, or the last comp is what mattered. If I wasn't beating myself, I was losing in my book. It about moving forward. If you're going to swoop, do it well. You'll never win any real money swooping, gain any real celebrity, or even gain any real respect (I'm 100% sure that Jay get as much shit as ever after going 670+ feet as he did before). Your performance is only of value to yourself, and if you have a desire to perform at your best, a structured competition is the best way to go.

You're making these statements as if loading too much is one thing, and the inverse is too big a wing, implying that the loading would be inadequate )as in under the 'sweet spot'). How does the 'sweet spot' translate to a bigger wing? Does the increased drag create the need for a higher loading to be 'swwet'? Is the 'sweet spot' a function of loading, or size? Or does it change with each size? If so, what direction does the scale go; does a bigger wing need more or less loading? A smaller wing? In the end, I think you may be wrong. If you can answer my queations, I may be wrong (but I'm not).

***I'm actually going for a 1.3-1.35 WL and barring bad luck, I will be at 300+ jumps by the time I take delivery*** This is another area where you may run into problems. Buying gear based on future weight loss and/or jump numbers almost never works out the way you plan. Just something to think about.

We had a handful of jumpers in the Ohio district who showed up for the first meet to many peoples great surprise. From gold medal winning four way guys to those just barely past 500 jumps, all of whom never expressed an interest in competittion swooping. Despite many verticals, all aggreed it was the most fun they had skydiving (the gold medals aside), and all made it to additional meets. We had a few ringers in the district, and everyone knew who would take the top few spots, but these others brought their best, and all had fun, and imporoved their swooping (and scores) big time by the end of the season.

Your mission: Learn to fly the stock X-fire first (Hint: This will take several hundred jumps)

Thats not ture. Speak up, and tell people to move the hell over, you can make room for a gear check. An Otter only holds so many people. Some of them will take up more room than they are due, or do some weird shifting around closer to exit time. Either way, get vocal, point out the trouble makers, and get your gear squared away.