wingloading question

[crotalus01 0]

is there a massive difference between a 1.1 wingload and a 1.3 wingload?
no canopy sizes, no exit weight provided. just answer the question please.
what is the minimum number of jumps for a person to try loading a wing at 1.1 in your opinion?
PS - not talking ellipticals.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[AggieDave 6]

There is a significant difference. Also, the size of the canopy is actually very important. 1.3 on a 230 isn't the same as 1.3 on a 120.

Generally speaking Brian Germain's guide is a good guide.

Jump numbers/Wingloading:

0-100 <1.0:1
100-200 1.0-1.1
200-300 1.2
300-400 1.3

And so forth.

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

[diablopilot 2]

Depends on alot of factors.

Lets say you're only changing wingloading, but not canopy size, design or trim. A higher wingloading is going to give you a higer airspeed. The higher airspeed is going to make the canopy more responsive, it will react faster to a given input. The difference in weight on a large canopy is going to be more signifigant than that on a small canopy.

Now to a more comon scenario. Assuming the same design of the canopy, but a smaller size is how the change in wingloading is cause. The canopy will again have a higher airspeed and more rapid response from control inputs because of the speed. It will also have a more radical reacction to those control inputs because the shorte line length and the reduction in span (length from right to left of the wing).

All of these are mamagable dangers with experience.

The big problem lies in not having it. For example, I once new a kid who couldn't be told anything about canopy flight, he had it all figured out at 80 jumps. After going through several canopies, each one giving him poor landings 1 out of 5, he bought a VX at lss than 400 jumps. A 74 to be exact. Loading was over 2.1. He was able to land it fine till he had to avoid another jumper on the ground one day.

Another jumper was rapidly down sizing, but managed to listen to someone and slowed their roll somewhat. The wouldn't go back up a size when they decided to learn hook turns as sugested. If they had they might have broken a leg or pelvis instead of dying.

Another one couldn't consistantly land in the direction they planed. Nice wheelchair though.

A huge portion of surviving your canopy is your attitude. If you're saying "it's smaller than I know I should be jumping, but I can handle it" I hope your insurance is paid up. Be careful, just because it might cost a little more money or time, or be borring, or not be as cool, or not be in your colors for a while shouldn't be and excuse for saftey.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,989]

>is there a massive difference between a 1.1 wingload and a 1.3 wingload?

Yes.

>what is the minimum number of jumps for a person to try loading
>a wing at 1.1 in your opinion?

350 for me. Without training I wouldn't try it at less than 100.

[Nutz 0]

You know, I am of the opinion that wing loading doesn't mean much. It doesn't for me anyway. I have been in the 1.3 - 1.4 range sinse jump number 30. This is on a 190 sq ft canopy so that is why it makes less difference, I think. I have flown a square canopy for about my first 300 jumps as well. I have just recently gotten a semi eliptical canopy, same size, and I had better not turn it close to the ground or I am in trouble. Of course, that has been true all the way through my skydiving career. I think it depends on your size and skill level as to what wing loading you should be flying. Just my $.02.

Edit: Maybe I should rephrase this - the bigger you are the less important wingloading is. This can only be true up to a certain point - and I don't know and don't want to know what that point is. Anyway, don't flame me too bad.

[mattjw916 2]

I started quite early with ~1.1:1 loading... but I am VERY current and have a lot of coaching and studying under my belt. I won't be going any higher for a while though. A man's gotta know his limitations.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[larsrulz 0]

Sorry to hijack the thread for a moment, but...

Bill, do you put numbers before your downsize checklist (i.e. don't even worry about downsizing to 1.1 until you have 350 jumps, and then don't downsize until you can complete the checklist), or do you believe a more current and advanced pilot could handle 1.35 at 350 jumps as long as they properly downsized properly through 1.1 and 1.2?

Also, I have heard varying opinions at my dropzone, so what jump number to people put on jumping a fully elliptical canopy? I would certainly hope it is a factor in the downsizing decision, so how much does it affect? If it's assumed someone with 300 jumps can safely jump a 1.3, then does that correspond to an elliptical at 1.1 or is there a higher minimum jump number to go fully elliptical?

Of note, I still fly my sabre 190 barge at 1.0, so I'm not trying to justify some personal agenda, just curious of opinions as an up and coming instructor.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[repeter 0]

there is definatly a difference.. i jumped a sabre2 at 1.1 and a sabre2 at 1.3, but i had and am currently getting canopy coaching.. our dz has pretty strict wl rules.. in your case you couldn't even jump a 1:1 here.. so talk to your s&ta and people around your dz.. at 200 jumps i cant really give advice..

[billvon 2,989]

>or do you believe a more current and advanced pilot could handle 1.35 at
> 350 jumps as long as they properly downsized properly through 1.1 and
> 1.2?

With good training? Yes. Doing it themselves, making a concerted effort to learn and test themselves? Maybe. Making 350 jumps, during which they work on landing skills until they stop falling down? Definitely not.

>Also, I have heard varying opinions at my dropzone, so what jump number
>to people put on jumping a fully elliptical canopy?

Not really a good landmark. "Fully elliptical" can mean anything from a Stiletto to a Xaos. Loading is a better primary number, with the aggressiveness of the planform coming in a distinct second i.e. you are generally better off under a Stiletto 150 than even a Sabre 1 120.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

I have just recently gotten a semi eliptical canopy, same size, and I had better not turn it close to the ground or I am in trouble. Of course, that has been true all the way through my skydiving career. I think it depends on your size and skill level as to what wing loading you should be flying. Just my $.02.

So you're saying a minor confliction on final or an unforseen obstacle may injure or kill you?

[billvon 2,989]

>I have just recently gotten a semi eliptical canopy, same size, and I
>had better not turn it close to the ground or I am in trouble.

Yikes! Dude, either upsize or get training IMMEDIATELY! if you can't turn close to the ground, and someone cuts you off, you're dead. That's not a good position to be in.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

is there a massive difference between a 1.1 wingload and a 1.3 wingload?
no canopy sizes, no exit weight provided. just answer the question please.

I certainly noticed the difference between 1.05 and what I equate to about 1.2 (adjutment for the moderate altitude of Elsinore/Perris and the slightly smaller chute). Having a collapsible PC added to the effect. It was a tad over the edge for me. Now part of the problem was that I was not using more than 50% of my flare range, but I could get away with that before. Couldn't on a spectre 210. Any flaws you may have will become apparent if you make that jump.

But come on - your other posts have made it clear you're shopping for an answer.

[skyhighkiy 0]

Quote

But come on - your other posts have made it clear you're shopping for an answer

I 2nd that opinion. Crotalus, I've done it many, many times. shopped for a specific answer, that is.

don't shop for confirmation of what you want to do, listen with open ears, I finally started doing that and...surprise surprise, they were right
good luck!

BE THE BUDDHA!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

don't shop for confirmation of what you want to do, listen with open ears, I finally started doing that and...surprise surprise, they were right
good luck!

Not to be flippant, but what happened to change that?

[crotalus01 0]

got the reply i wanted. just wanted to know if there was significant difference between 1.1 and 1.3. there is. thanks. nowi just have to find a good deal on a 210.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[Nutz 0]

Quote

>I have just recently gotten a semi eliptical canopy, same size, and I
>had better not turn it close to the ground or I am in trouble.

Yikes! Dude, either upsize or get training IMMEDIATELY! if you can't turn close to the ground, and someone cuts you off, you're dead. That's not a good position to be in.

"Don't! Get! Eliminated!"

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

is there a massive difference between a 1.1 wingload and a 1.3 wingload?

Yes. Things seem to happen much quicker as you increase your wing loading. You have 20% more energy to disipitate on landing.

Quote

what is the minimum number of jumps for a person to try loading a wing at 1.1 in your opinion?

100, per Brian Germain's Wingloading Never Exceed forumula.

There are qualifiers:

1. Size is important too, since the canopy dimensions have more to do with its control sensitivity than the wing loading. A 165 pound guy (190 out the door) might find that a 190 loaded at 1:1 is an ideal first canopy, while a 115 pound woman (135 out the door) might not do well on a 135 at 1:1 until she's under her third canopy with a few hundred jumps.

2. You really want to have finished Bill von Novak's downsizing check list under the next size up.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Not really a good landmark. "Fully elliptical" can mean anything from a Stiletto to a Xaos. Loading is a better primary number, with the aggressiveness of the planform coming in a distinct second i.e. you are generally better off under a Stiletto 150 than even a Sabre 1 120.

I thnk it's safer and more accurate to consider the various high-performance ellipticals "different" rather than ranking them.

While Stlettos don't stay in a dive as long as Extreme FXs and do return completely to level flight without control input, they're also a lot more sensitive to toggle input. The same thing holds to a lesser degree when you compare a Stiletto to a Cross Fire 1 (haven't tried the 2).

When I changed from a Batwing 134 (elliptical) to a Stiletto 120 (also elliptical, but with a shorter controls troke), the Stiletto didn't always go in a straight line after plane-out due to pilot error, and I sometimes over corrected and crashed- at 600 jumps and a wing loading in the 1.6-1.7 range.

[skyhighkiy 0]

pm sent

BE THE BUDDHA!

[DancingFlame 0]

Quote

is there a massive difference between a 1.1 wingload and a 1.3 wingload?

Yes, there is! With 1.3 you'll get all the winds into your eyes. Prepare for tears...
Stay at 1.1, and get coaching. Someday you'll understand what a wise decision it is.