obelixtim 150 #51 April 21, 2012 QuoteI am amazed that the evolution through out the years of skydiving that the rigs where ever designed in such a manner that allowed for nothing more then falling belly to earth. Skydive rigs do evolve, but sometimes there is a lag between a discipline catching on, and rigs being built to cater for that. Sitflying/head down is relatively recent, and of course rigs have evolved to cater for that, There are still plenty of older rigs around which are still quite servicable, and suitable if used in the manner they were designed for. Older rigs were perfectly fine for the mostly bellyflying skydiving community, and could handle short periods of time in a back to earth/head down position, however they weren't designed for sustained head down flight for long periods of time. Your student equipment is quite a lot different from the stuff that everyone jumped back in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Evolution is a continuous process, no doubt in 10 years time the gear we jump today will look "old hat"My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #52 April 21, 2012 Quote It is as if falling in any other manner is something new and radical. At one time it was....and hellyeah did we give those bozos the shit! People on only free fly because they can't belly fly. Freeflying is nothing more than semi-controlled flailing. Freeflyers can't tell their head from their ass. They flail on either one. Sitting on the job is missing the boat. If you're gonna be lazy, lay down on the job. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #53 April 21, 2012 QuoteI am amazed that the evolution through out the years of skydiving that the rigs where ever designed in such a manner that allowed for nothing more then falling belly to earth Just for reference, the word 'freeflying' didn't even exist until about 1993/1994-ish, when the modern version of freeflying really came to be. There were some variants of the theme before then, but not really groups of people falling at higher airspeeds and unusual attitudes for the entire jump. Once it started to catch on, the rig manufacturers started to improve the performance of their product. The people who design rigs are jumpers, and have a profound interest 'function'. If the market has a need for a certain function in a rig, they will come up with a solution. Until the middle-90's, the market just never expressed such a need. For the record, older rigs are capable of things besides RW, but that's provided that they are packed and maintained properly. On those rigs, that involves frequent replacement of velcro and spandex pouches and properly sized canopies. Even then the designs aren't ideal for freeflying, but the trouble is that older rigs tend to end up not being properly maintained, and somtimes mis-matched with canopies. It's part of being old and cheap, they end up in the hands of cheap (or poor) people, and so the rigs end up with some limitations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hangdiver 1 #54 April 21, 2012 Quote It's pretty obvious that 2 seperate square sections aren't landable. The story is that Jim Handbury landed a couple seperates. If you're ever in Lodi...in the packing hanger...look up...the very first student I jump mastered...the pilot's son...landed that blown out Unit III. From the plane it looked like he was flying two bed sheets... It worked for him...but I wouldn't recommend it. hangdiver "Mans got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
