ripcord4 0 #26 September 12, 2005 2,600 plus jumps -I'm using a 370 sq.ft main & reserve (MT-1XX military canopies) loaded at .63 : 1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #27 September 12, 2005 Quote2,600 plus jumps -I'm using a 370 sq.ft main & reserve (MT-1XX military canopies) loaded at .63 : 1. Have you ever tried to gain altitude in thermals? Do you know what your sink rate is? THANKS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #28 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuote2,600 plus jumps -I'm using a 370 sq.ft main & reserve (MT-1XX military canopies) loaded at .63 : 1. Have you ever tried to gain altitude in thermals? Do you know what your sink rate is? THANKS As a rigger examiner for lap, you should be able to answer that yourself. Lap parachute systems have not been made since the 30's and the FAA has not issued a Lap rating in over 20 years. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #29 September 12, 2005 It's also all relative. Most people would consider a 269 sf canopy to to be a massive, docile, safe bus, but it gives me a 1.2 WL which demands that I fly it with respect. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reginald 0 #30 September 12, 2005 At 700 jumps I fly a Saber2 loaded at 1.2. I can stand up my landings it in any conditions, upwind, downwind, on the DZ, off the DZ, you name it. I can consistently put it down within 10 feet of where I want to land anytime in any conditions. It’s been 350 jumps since I landed on anything other than my feet, regardless of the conditions. I’ve been flying it for 400 jumps and plan on putting another 200 or 300 jumps on it, at least. Then I’ll downsize to a 1.35 WL for another 700 or more jumps. I know plenty of people flying canopies loaded below 1.2 with thousands of jumps. One of them I have a lot of respect for told me, when I had about 150 jumps, that one of the reasons he has 2,000 jumps is because he flies a conservative canopy. An instructor friend of mine (featured in this months parachutist) said she never flew a canopy loaded beyond 1.2 until she had more than 1,000 jumps! She has 5,000 jumps now and flies an elliptical at probably a 1.7. I know too many people that think WL start a 1.1 and go to 2.0ish. My personal opinion is that 1.0 is a good place to start and 1.5 is as high as most people will ever need to go. 1.5 is a VERY HIGH WL! Beyond 1.5 is an area for true experts with thousands of jumps and overconfident fools trying to hurt themselves. Just my opinion and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with me. You will eventually have to make your own choices, choose wisely it’s your life."We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #31 September 12, 2005 I fly a Pilot150 about WL 1.4. I was wondering what could be my next canopy. I had some nice lessons yesterday from my canopy. I had to realize I'm not really ready from going down yet. I can have enough fun on this WL with e.g. no wind situation. I do mean fun and not problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #32 September 12, 2005 I jump at about 1.5, not a big deal, but my wife has over 1400 jumps and weighs 125 out the door. She jumps a Fusion 135 and has no intention of downsizing. VSE built her a nice little rig to hold it all that hides behind her very well ( and it's very hard to hide behind her), so for her, why go smaller? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcord4 0 #33 September 12, 2005 I have not intentionally tried for altitude gain but I certainly have hovered a few times! Rate of descent is, of course, dependent on what I am doing with (to) the canopy, but it is slow regardless. One of these days I would like to try landing it with no flare. Half braked landings are easy if I pay attention to business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #34 September 12, 2005 Just over 3000 jumps, 30 years in the sport. 190, 252, 260 & 325 for my mains.... 245 & 270 for the reserves... That's how ya get 30 years in the sport! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #35 September 12, 2005 QuoteWhat do you consider "high" jump numbers? At almost 1100 jumps I fly a canopy I load at about 1.0:1. bytchy, You SO do not weigh 170 out the door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EvilLurker 2 #36 September 12, 2005 "One of these days I would like to try landing it with no flare." I did that twice on my PD-210 when I had zero penetration. Stood them both up without taking a step. I was amazed at how low the sink rate was, no wonder it gets me back from those out-of-state spots. It's loaded at .85:1 and in very good condition, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcord4 0 #37 September 12, 2005 Quote"One of these days I would like to try landing it with no flare." I did that twice on my PD-210 when I had zero penetration. Stood them both up without taking a step. I was amazed at how low the sink rate was, no wonder it gets me back from those out-of-state spots. It's loaded at .85:1 and in very good condition, though. My half braked landings are like that. As soon as I put my Orthopedist on speed dial, I'll try the no-brakes landing when the winds are right. And I thought I was the only whacko out there to do things like that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #38 September 12, 2005 Quotebytchy, You SO do not weigh 170 out the door Thanks for the compliment, but yes, according to the scale I really do weigh 170 out the door. Unless it's "that time of the month," in which case I weigh about 175 out the door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #39 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo my next question, what wing loading would be considered hp? One that is above the experience and skill level of the jumper under it. Wait a minute. So you're saying pro swoopers are either (a) not experienced enough to be jumping the canopies they are or (b) not actually flying HP canopies. It's sort of a Catch-22. The way you defined HP there makes it a bad (or invalid) choice in all cases.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #40 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuotebytchy, You SO do not weigh 170 out the door Thanks for the compliment, but yes, according to the scale I really do weigh 170 out the door. Unless it's "that time of the month," in which case I weigh about 175 out the door. I have a hard time believing it unless I saw it. You look petite. I wonder how much Peter Galli weighs - he sure as hell ain't (170 OTD). I think one of my nuts was trapped between a leg strap that Monday and there was no room in that suit to adjust. That's a tight suit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #41 September 13, 2005 Ditto... exactly what TWARDO said. jumped a cloud for years... 200+ sq ft. Also owned a ParaFoil 252 Lite. ( made my Night SCR with that canopy,,,,back in 1980) I then flew a RW challenger 240 for about 1,200 jumps... i'm just under 200 pounds Granted that old F111 was Nowhere!!! near H. P. but I landed it safely Every time... ZERO mals, as well. Once in a while it gave me a slide-in landing,, (it got kinda Porous with age,,,) and sometimes I backed up......( taught me NOT to ever go tooo far downwind ) i learned good 1/2 brake and 3/4 brake canopy flying, when shooting accuracy... Got a P D Spectre 210 around 4 years ago.... It's just perfect..... 225 reserve.... i also have a second rig with a different RW Challenger 240... Paid 150 bucks for the main canopy One man's "DumpTruck" can be another man's Ferrari !!!!!!" Up size Down size, why not just stick with the right size????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites atsaubrey 0 #42 September 13, 2005 my new canopy shipped today and I am downsizing 50 ft2 the first time out. And I plan to stay on something this big for a long long time"GOT LEAD?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #43 September 13, 2005 QuoteIt's sort of a Catch-22. The way you defined HP there makes it a bad (or invalid) choice in all cases. No, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. The right amount of experience and skill can remove HP from a canopy and make it just a canopy. There are very few canopy pilots that posses that skill and experience though. Most just think they do. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #44 September 13, 2005 Quote What do you consider "high" jump numbers? At almost 1100 jumps I fly a canopy I load at about 1.0:1. Out of curiosity, is that choice due to the extreme back problems you've had or if that wasn't in the equation would you still jump a similar wingloding and size of canopy?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites The111 1 #45 September 13, 2005 QuoteNo, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. Your original statement was that HP = flying a canopy beyond one's skillset. And I still disagree with that. The fact that a top pro swooper can make an impressive 300ft swoop on a 2.0 wingloading and do it safely 1000 times in a row does not take away the "HP" (if anything, it makes it more HP, because their performance is higher... get it? ). By your definition (my interpretation, ok?), being in over your head is a requirement of "HP". (And I think we can agree being in over your head is a bad choice).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #46 September 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. Your original statement was that HP = flying a canopy beyond one's skillset. And I still disagree with that. The fact that a top pro swooper can make an impressive 300ft swoop on a 2.0 wingloading and do it safely 1000 times in a row does not take away the "HP" (if anything, it makes it more HP, because their performance is higher... get it? ). By your definition (my interpretation, ok?), being in over your head is a requirement of "HP". (And I think we can agree being in over your head is a bad choice). To you it is HP, to them it is just another canopy. Their skill and experience allow them to do it safely a 1000 times in a row. Like you said, that is my definition, if you don't agree with it fine, there is no requirement that you buy off on anything I post. But don't try and change it to fit your "interpretation". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #47 September 13, 2005 I have quite a few jumps and load only at 1.8, which many consider to be quite low for my experience level. Part of the reason is I'm at a DZ that's 5000ft AMSL, but I also don't like to fall down. If I were jumping at sea level, I'd be on a 90 something, but 10, 20 or 30 years from now I may well be jumping something the same size I started out on, which was around 200 sq ft when I was 22 years old. For me it's all about staying within your limitations. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EvilLurker 2 #48 September 13, 2005 QuoteAnd I thought I was the only whacko out there to do things like that! Well, I judged it by eye and was ready to flare, decided I could land it without flaring and was right. I was descending vertically in steady winds and figured if I flared I was going to end up landing backwards. Don't try it just because I did, I'm pretty sure my old Triathlon would have caused me some major pain in the same situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Elisha 1 #49 September 13, 2005 QuoteTo you it is HP, to them it is just another canopy. Their skill and experience allow them to do it safely a 1000 times in a row. Like you said, that is my definition, if you don't agree with it fine, there is no requirement that you buy off on anything I post. But don't try and change it to fit your "interpretation". Sparky Sparky, I think the majority of us agree with the HP = High Performance while you define HP = death trap. Tonto, I didn't know 1.8 was a "passive" (or just not that aggressive) at ANY AMSL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #50 September 13, 2005 QuoteSparky, I think the majority of us agree with the HP = High Performance while you define HP = death trap. Once again, I did not say "HP = death trap", you did. My original post on my definition of a HP canopy: "One that is above the experience and skill level of the jumper under it." Where did I make reference to "death trap"? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
atsaubrey 0 #42 September 13, 2005 my new canopy shipped today and I am downsizing 50 ft2 the first time out. And I plan to stay on something this big for a long long time"GOT LEAD?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #43 September 13, 2005 QuoteIt's sort of a Catch-22. The way you defined HP there makes it a bad (or invalid) choice in all cases. No, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. The right amount of experience and skill can remove HP from a canopy and make it just a canopy. There are very few canopy pilots that posses that skill and experience though. Most just think they do. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #44 September 13, 2005 Quote What do you consider "high" jump numbers? At almost 1100 jumps I fly a canopy I load at about 1.0:1. Out of curiosity, is that choice due to the extreme back problems you've had or if that wasn't in the equation would you still jump a similar wingloding and size of canopy?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #45 September 13, 2005 QuoteNo, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. Your original statement was that HP = flying a canopy beyond one's skillset. And I still disagree with that. The fact that a top pro swooper can make an impressive 300ft swoop on a 2.0 wingloading and do it safely 1000 times in a row does not take away the "HP" (if anything, it makes it more HP, because their performance is higher... get it? ). By your definition (my interpretation, ok?), being in over your head is a requirement of "HP". (And I think we can agree being in over your head is a bad choice).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #46 September 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo, the way you defined HP makes it bad. Don't put words in my mouth, I don't like the taste. Your original statement was that HP = flying a canopy beyond one's skillset. And I still disagree with that. The fact that a top pro swooper can make an impressive 300ft swoop on a 2.0 wingloading and do it safely 1000 times in a row does not take away the "HP" (if anything, it makes it more HP, because their performance is higher... get it? ). By your definition (my interpretation, ok?), being in over your head is a requirement of "HP". (And I think we can agree being in over your head is a bad choice). To you it is HP, to them it is just another canopy. Their skill and experience allow them to do it safely a 1000 times in a row. Like you said, that is my definition, if you don't agree with it fine, there is no requirement that you buy off on anything I post. But don't try and change it to fit your "interpretation". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #47 September 13, 2005 I have quite a few jumps and load only at 1.8, which many consider to be quite low for my experience level. Part of the reason is I'm at a DZ that's 5000ft AMSL, but I also don't like to fall down. If I were jumping at sea level, I'd be on a 90 something, but 10, 20 or 30 years from now I may well be jumping something the same size I started out on, which was around 200 sq ft when I was 22 years old. For me it's all about staying within your limitations. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EvilLurker 2 #48 September 13, 2005 QuoteAnd I thought I was the only whacko out there to do things like that! Well, I judged it by eye and was ready to flare, decided I could land it without flaring and was right. I was descending vertically in steady winds and figured if I flared I was going to end up landing backwards. Don't try it just because I did, I'm pretty sure my old Triathlon would have caused me some major pain in the same situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #49 September 13, 2005 QuoteTo you it is HP, to them it is just another canopy. Their skill and experience allow them to do it safely a 1000 times in a row. Like you said, that is my definition, if you don't agree with it fine, there is no requirement that you buy off on anything I post. But don't try and change it to fit your "interpretation". Sparky Sparky, I think the majority of us agree with the HP = High Performance while you define HP = death trap. Tonto, I didn't know 1.8 was a "passive" (or just not that aggressive) at ANY AMSL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #50 September 13, 2005 QuoteSparky, I think the majority of us agree with the HP = High Performance while you define HP = death trap. Once again, I did not say "HP = death trap", you did. My original post on my definition of a HP canopy: "One that is above the experience and skill level of the jumper under it." Where did I make reference to "death trap"? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
