Downsizing - Canopy Question

[judedude 0]

I was discussing with a more experienced skydiver my intent to downsize next season from a Hornet 170 to a Safire 2 149 or similar semi-elliptical 9-cell. He told me that, in addition to increased wing loading, there was a non-proportional transition in line length that would have a dramatic effect. But, he could not say at what size canopy this change first appears.

For my modest jump numbers, I am a strong and safety-minded canopy pilot, comfortable in no wind in 100 degree heat. So, especially after doubling my jump numbers, I am not especially concerned about the slight increase in loading (from 1.08 to 1.2) going to the Safire 2. But, is this line shortening factor real? And, if so, is it a factor in my case?

Thanks!

[Frenchy68 0]

Just out of curiosity: why are you planning on downsizing?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[judedude 0]

My factors are really just container size and comfort. I have a blast flying the 170. But, since this new rig will be with me a while, I'm considering dropping down one canopy size.

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

My factors are really just container size and comfort. I have a blast flying the 170. But, since this new rig will be with me a while, I'm considering dropping down one canopy size.

How big of a deal is container size really, ... I'm jumping about 1.08:1 on a 190, in a container that used to hold a 210... I really dont notice any discomfort. 1.2 at 80 jumps (if you double) is a little bit on the high side in my low jump # opinion. Just remember it only takes one bad landing, how you do on "most" of them doesnt matter at that point.

edited to add: When you custom order a new container (sounds like your doing) it's gonna be comfortable, not like the rentals your probably used to now

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[judedude 0]

You're probably right about the container size not being a big deal. I am still trying to decide what I want to buy and may end up sticking with 170's.

But, back to my main question... is there a transition in line length that occurs as canopies get smaller that adds an additional effect beyond loading? Or, am I getting a line of bull.

[PhreeZone 20]

It happens at every size. A 120 has shorter lines for the most part then a 135. A 210's lines are shorter then a 230's. Go check out PD's website and read their articles on why a 1:1 loading on a 120 is different then a 1:1 loading on a 210.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[bob.dino 1]

The article in question

[jsaxton 0]

The shorter line length will make the canopy more responsive (turn faster) The same amount of toggle input will result in a "tighter" turn.

1.2 is (in my humble opinion) not unreasonable WL but the shorter line length will make any "panic" moves more likely to cause serious injury or death.

Be Safe, Have fun.

[skydivefive 0]

Have you demoed the 149? I am looking at the same downsizing from a 170 to a 150, and have been demoing a lot lately. I stuck with the 170's but just tried out a friends 150 Pilot. It was sweet, but just like jsaxton said in the last post, any 'panic' moves will cost you.

For me I am going to give my current canopy some more time and maybe 50 jumps from now will go down to a 150. There is no big rush, so I want to be sure I am confortable with the canopy I am flying.

It isn't what it could be, or it what it should be, it is what it is.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I have a blast flying the 170. But, since this new rig will be with me a while, I'm considering dropping down one canopy size.

Considering is OK, but don't do it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[judedude 0]

Thanks for the input everyone. Point taken. I'm just going to order a new container and continue jumping the Hornet 170 for a while.

[tustinr 1]

Good move ! Stay with the 170 for a while longer.

---------------------------------------
Everything that happens to you in life is your teacher. The secret is to learn to sit at the feet of your life and be taught.

[Kris 0]

Quote

Thanks for the input everyone. Point taken. I'm just going to order a new container and continue jumping the Hornet 170 for a while.

Excellent plan. Choosing fashion over safety is always a bad decision.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[bob.dino 1]

Good call .

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

You're probably right about the container size not being a big deal. I am still trying to decide what I want to buy and may end up sticking with 170's.

But, back to my main question... is there a transition in line length that occurs as canopies get smaller that adds an additional effect beyond loading? Or, am I getting a line of bull.

It's not a "line of bull". This is true. The line length is shorter. Very noticably from a 170 to a 150. You will loose a lot more altitude in the turn on a 150 than a 170. Even with the same wing loading. This sucks particularly in a panic turn, or a side gust of wind, where your instinct is to reach out and break your fall. Instead you are turning yourself into the ground.

May as well go through some of these learning curves with a 170.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Trae 1]

inreply to "For my modest jump numbers, I am a strong and safety-minded canopy pilot, comfortable in no wind in 100 degree heat.

In reply to the line length thingy ' this depends a bit on the canopy design. Some CRW canopies have shortened lines to give quicker rotations . These shortliners may have altered flare characteristics due ti the altered line length.
Usually as the canopy gets smaller so the lines get shorter. This OFTEN makes the canopy respond to control input faster and as there is also less mass to move things can happen a lot faster. So it's not a line of bull .....the guys correct ......things can happen very differently to what you'd be used to .

Not meaning to be unfeeling or anything but you really could learn a thing or two by reading some fatality reports. you'll find that a large % of deaths are due to exactly the type of downsizing you're proposing. It's not a matter of what you think you know or how safe you may be now it's the unexpected things that a person with 40 jumps just hasn't had time to experience under canopy or during changed landing conditions.

40 jumps on a 170 ?. You could happily do another 100 before thinking about going down in size.

Remember this isn't like in freefall where there hopefully are fewer large objects to strike with deadly force. You can have a lot of fun learning to fly with the larger canopy (a 170 some 10 -15 years ago would have been considered high performance for a novice) where any mistakes will be at a relatively slower and less lethal pace.
Downsize too fast for cosmetic or 'comfort' reasons and your statistical likelihood of hurting yourself goes through the roof....at your stated experience level.

Caution is the better part of valour when you're close to the ground .

[linc_harris 0]

I made the mistake of downsizing too early, even though I wasn't that good at landing.
I finally learned how to land it after 2 months of demolition derby (bumps and bruises). Loosing weight (wingloading) helped as well.

From here on out I will be using the Downsize Checklist (an article by Bill von Novak-Dec 13 2003) and some advise an AFF instructor gave me a while back:
"If you can't land on your feet (under the same canopy) at least 100 times (consecutively) in a row, you have no buisness downsizing."

There's my 2 cents.