DontfallOff

Playing with the plane looks like fun! :D

Cheers VF, Have you flown Pilots that are loaded much lighter than that? If so, is there a substantial drop in performance as they get smaller? Or do they fly essentially the same (just faster) as they get smaller? I think 1.6 is about as far as I am going to go right now, but it will be good to know if they could cope with a substatial increase in wing loading

I'd be trying pretty hard not to go unconscious then I think!

Sorry, responded without thinking it through. A jumper comfortable on a 111 shoudl find a 172 to be a very conservative reserve size if they are not landing it with some kind of jump-induced disability. I didn't even look at the WL seriously - A WL like that wouldn't be fun to be under when everything has to count. I'd want enough fabric to be able to land safely even if Im landing as a result of an unconscious reserve ride. To maintain the same ration of reserve size to main size that he has, I would need to have a 232 sqft reserve in my container - much more conservative than I am doing right now. I still would prefer not to think about relying on a 1.72 wl reserve if I had a cypres save after being knocked unconsious in freefall...

Oh shit! I misread that! I thought it said 172sqft reserve!

Thanks mate.

Then everyone could see our mad skills as we land... AND we can show everyone our footage again at the bar after the jump! Especially the guys who missed our landing because they pulled high! If we can just figure out a way to stream it straight to youtube I reckon we could retire! GENIUS Is your profile accurate? It says you have a tiny main, but that you pair it with a reserve big enough to land even if you're in trouble... that's the setup I want. If I need my reserve, I want to be able to land it safely even with blood in my eyes.

Thanks Dave - thats appreciated. So the that would mean that if I am aiming at a WL of no more than 1.6 that a 132 would be the smallest I would want to look at - especially taking into account more weight gain, winter clothing, and the effect of altitude if I travel to a DZ that has a higher landing area. Its not just one thing that is making me consider downsizing my kit, and I am taking the guidance of the much more experienced and conservative guys at my DZ to make sure I am doing it as safely as possible. My thoughts so far are as follows: Reasons I am considering downsizing my rig and canopy: + lugging my current heavy rig on and off passenger planes is getting old quick, especially since not all airlines allow sporting equipment to travel free, I had to pay almost US$500 to carry the extra weight from Australia to Europe recently - that is a whole lot of beer money that should have crossed the bar instead. + It is fun being under a smaller canopy, I appreciate that the risks do increase although jumping a bigger stable canopy is much more fun than not jumping because you're broken after an unintentional off DZ downwind landing into rocks. + There will be a very small performance advantage of having a smaller rig when wingsuiting - not as much as practice will give, but its a positive. + Being a cool skydiver is all about showing that you've got mad skillz - that's why youtube and small format cameras are so popular - back before we had those, it was low deployments and swooping that gave everyone a chance to appreciate the exceptional talent that we have - I also have a really big wingsuit, so people on the ground can see me earlier in freefall and appreciate my late deployment. + Having a tiny rig means everyone can see more of me. + All of the work jumpers at my DZ have really small rigs, and this will help me fit in. Reasons I am waiting to downsize (or considering not downsizing): - I am only ever going to get better and safer as I keep jumping my current gear. -Smaller canopy means everything happens faster - I will have less time to respond to any kind of problem when it happens. - Smaller canopies aren't as forgiving during opening, WS openings like a larger more stable opening - I could miss jumps waiting for a repack if I have to chop a spinning mal. - Landings become less forgiving with less fabric over the top. - If I get fat or travel to higher DZs, then my WL may become higher to the point of being unsafe. - If I get fat, a smaller rig will hide less of my fatness. - Its easier to do sports CRW with mates after a WS jump if we are all on the same wing loading. - People are more likely to watch my landings if there is a risk I will hurt myself (so less chance of flying under the radar) - that could be a positive as well though...

I'm looking at getting a smaller rig, and since I like my ZPX Pilot 150 so much, I'd like to stick with the Pilot as a main (just in a smaller size). I'm currently loading it at about 1.4 (depending on how many beers I've had that month) and I'm wondering if anyone is able to outline how the canopy performs when it is loaded higher? Is there a limit where the increased WL starts to reduce the canopy's performance and where a canopy that has been designed with a high WL in mind becomes a more suitable choice? Basically I'm looking for a canopy that will be a good WS canopy but just be couple of sizes smaller, my last 400 jumps have been on Pilots and Sabres (1s and 2s) of varying sizes, and I'm really happy with how my Pilot opens, flies and lands - if I can keep things about the same but make them all smaller, I'll be a happy camper. Obviously the best thing to do would be to test jump some in smaller sizes, and see what difference that makes, but before I do this, I'm wondering what experience is already out there...

Thats where it gets interesting... the leases are all mixed up, part station, part crown land, we've been using it for over 30 years though, so we also have rights as well... I'll update as each new development plays out

I think the schedule is first to have the end of the runway cut short. If that does go ahead we will need a means of operating while secondary plans are implemented. A STOL plane of some kind (or chopper) would allow us to operate from the same location while things like moving roads, powerlines, moving the DZ etc are implemented. Ideally we would go on operating from the same location with no change, but if we do have to change, an aircraft with a shorter runway requirement would be a nice interim solution that works for everybody. I'm sure there will be a lot more info coming onto the site in the next couple of weeks. The entire situation has remained very low profile so far, but this company is a large multinational and they havent played fair up to now...

Jet Ranger? +1 :) It'd be a great solution for a while :) A worked 182 or 206 could be a lot cheaper and still keep the air strip open long term, although if we are spending the money on upgrading our 182 already, it makes sense to invest the money in an air frame that could grow with the club... so many choices! At least a lot of them are looking like good choices though now :)

No other options nearby - the idea of adding some runway to the other end has been considered, but there are powerlines at that end of the runway that need to be avoided, extending the runway at that end would mean we need a plane that has a much steeper take-off angle anyway. We're in discussion with the company as to how to minimise impacts for everybody, right now having some kind of STOL plane would present the lowest impact option for every body involved, providing it fits the budget and can operate in the shorter runway while the company proceeds with their timelines and while we wait to have the club either moved, or modified to allow it to work with the adjusted access

Cheers - that's appreciated :) Sounds like the kind of cryptic clue one might find in an Indiana Jones movie... next thing you know I'm gonna be running away from a giant rolling boulder, and being chased by rabid monkeys somewhere in South America! Good times! :)

Sounds positive - Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but what's the best way to get in touch with Forest McBride? Can you PM me details?

So is there an aircraft that is as cheap as a 182 but that can be run from a very short runway? The 182 has been working for us so far but with the runway being cut short like it is likely to be, we're going to need something. Are there mods that can be done to a 182 that can make it get off the ground in a much much shorter distance? Increased HP, STOL kit etc?

Also spelled: Pseudoephedrine - chewing these at the start of the day lets the nasal passages and the eustachain tubes (little passage that connects your inner ear with the back of your nose that lets the air pressure equalise on both sides of your ear drum) expand so air can more freely move in and out of them - having this with a coffee makes it work faster if I forget to take it soon enough before jumping. Blowing your nose before jump run also works for me if I'm jumping with a cold (not recommended due to risk of permanent hearing damage) - the expanding air in your sinus / eustachian tubes helps to flush mucous clear of your smaller nasal pipes on the way to height, if you blow your nose just before jump run (especially on first jump of the day) it normally can move that snot away so you don't get squeeze as the air tries to move back in as you descend. If you forget, that mucous can act like a valve and prevent the air from flowing back in as easily, instant squeeze. Bring a tissue if you're going to do this and maybe use the hand that you're not gonna shake everyone's with... If I forget to blow my nose before getting into the plane at the beginning of the day, I frequently get a squeeze in my ears or in my sinus and this helps at the beginning of the day - I recently did a wingsuit rodeo and at about 7000 feet on the way down I got a massive sinus squeeze, I would normally back fly and blow my nose in freefall, but with a passenger I was a bit stuck... when I got to the ground it looked like I'd be punched in the face because of the bruising. Also a saline nasal spray works to soften any dried out boogers that may be up there blocking the free passage of air into and out of your nasal cavities - just don't forget to blow your nose well at the beginning of the day. - I'm not claiming to be a doctor but it works for me

Biggest goal is to keep the DZ alive as a sports jumping DZ - with reduced access to a runway this is going to be 'interesting.' Will update as we hear more. Cheers for your suggestions guys.

Quality stills!

What are the odds of getting white puffies in October in Texas? We almost never get em anywhere in West Australia, it'd almost be worth the 20hrs in a plane just to spend the time swooping he cumulus! :)

a couple dozen fun jumpers but thats only since we reopned a couple months back, its growing fast and the tandems are growing as well. its hard to say just how busy it will get... we were doing 20 or so tandems a day when we had it running a couple years back...

Sounds like everyone loves the Porter :) There aren't many of those here in Australia - its a short dirt runway that we may lose more of because a mining company is trying to cut our operating space short so they can expand their rail operations. The existing runway is 1200m of hard packed gravel, this is likely to be shortened significantly. We need a plane that will let us work with a shortened runway or else we may have to close one of the best and oldest DZs in the country :( The Helio looks good as well, what are they like to jump from?

What options do we have if we are looking for a plane that has to take off on a really short runway (less than 800m and maybe as short as 500m) with around 5-10 jumpers on board and with summer temperatures rising up around 40C?

SQUIRREL!! That's classic!

I love my P2 and I'm sure you're going to love yours! And that's a sweet choice of colours ;)