40 foot downsize.

[mrmanta 0]

Is 1.36 a conservative wingload for what will be my last downsize? I'm 205 without gear. 400 jumps.
my first downsize a few years back was from a manta 288 to a traiathlon 210. I'd like to move to a pilot 169. I stand up 98% of landings except 2% of those no wind 2nd base slides. I'm thinking 9 cells will help that a little. I don't need to swoop or front riser the landings and want to stay so it would be my last downsize. I really don't want to mess with a 190. is 40 feet too drastic?

[hackish 8]

I can't really answer your question directly but have you considered renting or demoing a 190 first? I spent some time on a sabre 210 and found a spectre 170 was a significantly faster canopy.

-Michael

[billvon 2,989]

> I'm thinking 9 cells will help that a little.

Not really. 9 cells will give you more flare power, but it takes skill to get that flare power out of the canopy. If you're not standing up a 1:1 tri in no wind, it is likely that you will have even more trouble with a more efficient 9 cell - especially a smaller one.

I would recommend a progression like this:

Tri 210
Pilot 210
Pilot 188
Pilot 168

Obligatory warning - your first few jumps on the Pilot 210 you will likely balloon on landing due to the wider flare band, so choose a moderate wind day to try it. Also make sure you are flaring all the way; the Tri flare comes very early in the toggle stroke.

At each level, try to land no wind/crosswind/downwind and work on it until you can do it. Just going down in size does NOT (repeat does NOT) make landings easier; indeed, they become significantly more difficult, and you need additional skills to land the smaller canopy.

Also consider a Silhouette 210/190. They "fly small" so you may be much happier with the Sil 210, and you won't have to sacrifice square footage (which can save your bacon on occasion.)

[AggieDave 6]

Then again, Bill is sponsored by Aerodyne with their instructor program...

Personally I feel like the Tri is one of the worst flying canopies on the market today. If you want a solid 7-cell I would go with the Spectre. For a 9-cell the Silhouette is a really good choice as well. I would recommend demoing everything that is appropriate for your skill level at the same size that you currently jump. Then you can see if you want to move on to a smaller canopy. Talk to the people at your DZ, but also talk to the reps at the companies you call for demos. The major players (PD, Aerodyne, Icarus) all want you to buy what is right for you at your skill level. They know that if you hurt yourself you may not be a repeat customer.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sparkie 0]

Hi there,

Im almost the same weight as you, I went from a 210 (pilot) to the 168 (pilot). In between I tried a pilot 190 in no wind conditions. I felt that i got more flare with the 190 and even more with the 168.

It does go down a lot faster ofcourse, but I dont think the pilot is an extreme canopy. (not that i can compare but given the cat. it fall in...)

A side effect I noticed was the very different traffic you get in on a smaller canopy, before i was one of the last to land, now its busy in the pattern. Made me realise that there's more to consider and be ware of than just WL.

hth

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Then again, Bill is sponsored by Aerodyne with their instructor program...

So? If the OP had said he wants a Sabre2 that is is 40 sq ft smaller and Bill had come back with the Pilot recommendation your point might be valid. But he didn't. He said he's thinking about a Pilot that is 40 sq feet smaller than his Tri. Bill suggested that he jump Pilots of larger sizes first. He also suggested a Silhouette.

Your advice is good but your first comment comes off as sour grapes.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Your advice is good but your first comment comes off as sour grapes.

Not sour grapes, just a strong belief that people should be upfront about their sponsorships when recommending gear. Its nothing personal about Bill, he's a good guy, its a belief in general. Its one thing for Stu to be talking about Velocities or the XB in Swooping to someone with 1000 jumps. They know he's sponsored by PD. However, in G&R or S&T or general the posters may not have been in the sport long enough to see this.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Is 1.36 a conservative wingload for what will be my last downsize? I'm 205 without gear. 400 jumps.
my first downsize a few years back was from a manta 288 to a traiathlon 210. I'd like to move to a pilot 169. I stand up 98% of landings except 2% of those no wind 2nd base slides. I'm thinking 9 cells will help that a little. I don't need to swoop or front riser the landings and want to stay so it would be my last downsize. I really don't want to mess with a 190. is 40 feet too drastic?

First you want to tune-up your landings before you loose square footage, increase your ground speed, and make the problem worse. Eventually you'll land slightly (< 5 MPH) down-wind some place you can't slide in - perhaps on a paved road.

After that the missing part is that the perceived effects of downsizing are personal and not linear. You can't predict it based on past experience or what other people think. Going from a 135 to a 120 caused me more problems than switching from a 155 to 135 or 295 to 205.

Changing shapes at the same size and not skipping sizes allows you to discover where that happens for you.

You might not need to buy extra canopies to get there. Demos are readily available from the manufacturers two weekends at a time.

Do some hop-and pops and play with crosswind and downwind landings at each step. Get video and coaching from some one who knows both canopies and instruction. The best swooper may not be the best teacher.

[billvon 2,989]

> just a strong belief that people should be upfront about
>their sponsorships when recommending gear.

Very well. Here are mine:

I have gotten gear discounts on:
Birdman wingsuits
Aerodyne canopies
PD main canopies
PD reserves
Hiper canopies
Icarus canopies
Rigging Innovations rigs
Aerodyne rigs

I have gotten the following for free:
Reflexes (thanks Gareth)
Beezy Slinks
Novas (well, actually the Nova was $50)
Risers (new but needed a bit of repair)

I have never gotten a 'kickback' from anyone for recommending gear.

Have you gotten any discounts on skydiving gear?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Have you gotten any discounts on skydiving gear?

I bought an old used Velocity fairly cheap. I got a 50% off Wings cert from a friend nearly 6 years ago when I bought my first rig. They hand those things out like candy, it seems. They accepted it, which was nice, but then they proved themselves a quality company through the course of the next couple of years.

The point is in regards to active sponsorships. Things in which you have an agreement between a jumper and a company. When recommending various products from that company, I believe that its important to mention "I'm a sponsored by that company." Basically since its not easily and always listed in someone's profile.

This would be a good thread for Bill to split off from this thread and for everyone to discuss.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[monkycndo 0]

You mean like this? But I don't think Bill was pushing Aerodyne. The OP asked about transitioning from two Aerodyne canopies and Bill referred to those canopies. A PD as well. But I do understand your point.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[Feeblemind 1]

Quote

Pilot 210 100-425
Pilot 188 425-850
Pilot 168 850 to current

That is my current progression over the last few years. Granted I am rather stocky and fly camera (I like the openings from the pilot ) I also have a Bitch at my DZ....her, her SO and others have given me very good advice to keep me from breaking myself.

So, back to the question....40 Sqft Down size, I would say there is significant risk to breaking yourself.

I suggest you speak to your instructor or S,T, and A or both. I took my time, but I also have a wife and kids....It depends on what your priorities are I guess.


Phil

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[phoenixlpr 0]

Don't worry too much. You should be able to handle it with 200 jump. Start flying your new wing in nice medium winds. Take your time and learn it to fly.

[LuvToFly 0]

I was always told that downsizing in increments greater than 20sf at a time was adding unnecessary risk, and I do believe it - unless someone has taken substantial amounts of weight off so that wing loading move with the wing choices. However, short of that, I think you leave yourself open to all that realistic things that could go wrong with such a move - things will be take you by surprise at perhaps the worst of moments, such as:

- Jumping the -40 at a high elevation drop zone (high density altitude) and finding out only too late and too close to the ground that your flare does not have the same bite you thought it did.

- Making it back from a bad spot might be a different kind of experience due to the differences in glide angle with the big hunk of 40sf no longer on the scene

- Picking up an accidental downwinder and finding out you are smoking across the ground at speeds that you sense immediately might put you in a world of pain if you touch down, cannot be a good feeling.

- You're also bound to get some different stall characteristics, along with some other nasty artifacts such as the more the load, the more apt for unrecoverabler line twists, and so on.

Most people seem to agree that taking it conservative saves lives in skydiving. All something to think about - I think!

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

- Jumping the -40 at a high elevation drop zone (high density altitude) and finding out only too late and too close to the ground that your flare does not have the same bite you thought it did.

- Making it back from a bad spot might be a different kind of experience due to the differences in glide angle with the big hunk of 40sf no longer on the scene

- Picking up an accidental downwinder and finding out you are smoking across the ground at speeds that you sense immediately might put you in a world of pain if you touch down, cannot be a good feeling.

- You're also bound to get some different stall characteristics, along with some other nasty artifacts such as the more the load, the more apt for unrecoverabler line twists, and so on.

Those are valid for any kind of donwsize......

[dragon2 2]

Quote

I was always told that downsizing in increments greater than 20sf at a time was adding unnecessary risk

It's not the square footage perse but the percentage. I found I had the most trouble with >15% downsizes and none at all with <10% downsizes, canopy types being similar (all intermediate type canopies).

20sqft is a LOT when going from a 120 to a 100sqft, but going from a 230 to a 210 is not as big a downsize.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[freeflysteve 0]

Hi
If your profile is correct and you are doing less than 40 jumps a year IMHO i think it is too big a downsize.
On the other thread "rapid downsizing"there is a real slagging match going on and relatively speaking the same wing loading is being achieved as you are aiming for,yes that person has less jumps than you but relatively speaking is as current.
I am not an instructor but i think i am reasonably current and keep up to date with the sport,i think others who have already suggested a progression to the canopy size you are aiming for know what they are talking about and it seems quite sensible irrespective of the make of canopy.Personaly i reallly like spectres and think for my goals they are a super well tried and tested canopy.
Good luck whichever way you proceed.
Steve

Swooping, huh? I love that stuff ... all the flashing lights and wailing sirens ... it's very exciting!

[BillyVance 34]

I've been at about 1.4 to 1.5 WL for the last 600 jumps give or take.

Started out with a Falcon 235 for 60 jumps, moved to a 170 piece of shit canopy for 80 jumps, then put 160 jumps on a Triathlon 160, then moved to a Triathlon 135 for 235 jumps before settling on the Triathlon 120 I've had since.

I think that's a pretty conservative progression. I was waaaay undersized with the Falcon 235 (weigh 150 without gear).

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Is 1.36 a conservative wingload for what will be my last downsize? I'm 205 without gear. 400 jumps. my first downsize a few years back was from a manta 288 to a traiathlon 210. I'd like to move to a pilot 169. I stand up 98% of landings except 2% of those no wind 2nd base slides. I'm thinking 9 cells will help that a little. I don't need to swoop or front riser the landings and want to stay so it would be my last downsize. I really don't want to mess with a 190. is 40 feet too drastic

Having never jumped a Pilot I can not offer advise on the canopy. I have been told good things and not so good things about it (nothing bad, please I am not slaming the Pilot). But there are many good canopy types out there and many of them will be better than your Triathlon. I am a former Triathlon jumper myself as the first canopy I owned was a Triathlon 220 and it wasn't a bad canopy, but my next canopy a Sabre2 190 was a million times better than the Triathlon.

A wingloading of 1.4:1 is NOT conservative. But it's not ultra aggresive either. However, it is advised not to skip a step in the downsizing scheme of things. Never say never when you say "it will be my last downsize". When I was jumping a 190 I thought I would never go smaller than a 150 and ... LOL .... now I jump an 87. But just don't skip a step in the downsizing scheme. Chances are that you can fly the 169 now, but you will be a better canopy pilot in the long run if you spend time on the 189 before going to the 169.

PS: The sooner you become a student of canopy flight the better you will be. Dedicate jumps towards canopy control, seek coaching, read books like "The Parachute and it's Pilot" and play with your canopy up high and when possible play with your canopy up high with others. Finally, no matter how good we may think we are, none of us are immune from making mistakes up there. Know that the ground will always be tougher than anyone of us.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Those are valid for any kind of donwsize......

Right, but the degree to which these things are different is greater the larger the square footage of downsize is.

To the OP - Demo, demo, demo!! It'll be worth the money and the time.

It's a good idea to not skip steps. As others have said, you may not need to spend a whole lot of jumps on a 190-ish canopy; you may find that it's not fast enough for you in which case demo some 170's.

But it would really suck to replace your current main with a 170 without jumping a 190 a few times first only to discover that the 170 is a bit faster than you expected/wanted. Think about those hot no-wind days or the occasional downwinder - how fast can you/do you want to run?

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Think about those hot no-wind days or the occasional downwinder - how fast can you/do you want to run?

Do you demo or jump new canopies in no wind or turbulent conditions?

My progression was something like Nav220-260-280 to Merit170 (2 jumps only), Navs again, than Pilot 150.
I know it was far from optimal. I had like 50 hop and pops before I could say that I can fly and land that thing.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Do you demo or jump new canopies in no wind or turbulent conditions?

I don't really see your point but anyway...

I choose not to jump when the air is turbulent, period. I like my canopy to remain inflated above me.

My latest downsize was done in one increment in part because I don't want to be limited to jumping only when there are winds (well, that and because I dislike pain). After 15 jumps on the new canopy I find that I now look forward to no wind days.

[billvon 2,989]

>A wingloading of 1.4:1 is NOT conservative. But it's not ultra aggresive either.

I'd consider a wingloading of 1.4 for a 100 lb girl pretty aggressive. It's not just the wingloading; it's the size.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

>A wingloading of 1.4:1 is NOT conservative. But it's not ultra aggresive either.

I'd consider a wingloading of 1.4 for a 100 lb girl pretty aggressive. It's not just the wingloading; it's the size.

I don't want to play with words. When I think of aggresive I think of something above 1.6:1, but that's just me. But aggresive also applies to how you fly the wing. Someone doing speed inducing front riser turns is more aggresive than someone coming in straight. Of course a 1.4:1 wingloading for a small person is much more aggresive than for a larger person. For the record, I don't think the OP should be jumping down to a 170 yet, I think in the long run they will be a better canopy pilot if they put a few hundred jumps on a 190 first.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,989]

> When I think of aggresive I think of something above 1.6:1, but that's just me.

Right. And whatever your definition, a 1.4 to 1 canopy on a 100 lb woman is nothing like a 1.4 to 1 canopy on a 190 lb guy. They are two very different animals. You can draw the line anywhere you like, but that 1.4 loading in and of itself doesn't define the line very well. (Not disagreeing with what you said, just trying to state what I was saying more clearly.)