BrianSGermain 1 #1 December 16, 2005 Here is the most current chart. It has been modified significantly based on your suggestions. Please don't bash it until you have really thought about it. Brian +Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyngsquirrl 0 #2 December 16, 2005 Can someone post or PM me a non-attachment version of this? The attachment's blocked at my office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #3 December 16, 2005 Brian, Care to offer how some of the odd numbers for the minimum sizes were arrived at? As best I can figure out, but didn't try hard, they don't represent real world canopies that might be chosen. Also, is this based on a particular measurement system? PIA vs PD vs various for ellipticals? Is the intent to be part of the BSR's or part of the recommendations? Just trying to understand.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #4 December 16, 2005 It's a chart, so it might be hard to get it paginated correctly using the forum software.May I ask, in the vein of councilman24, but with a slightly different angle:What's the derivation of the numbers? What makes a chart entry not one size bigger or smaller? What makes this table more correct than one with all values shifted to the right one notch? (and allowing the leftmost column to stay the same)My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #5 December 16, 2005 hmm I pretty much followed that chart. Except that after got my first canopy I never downsized, just gained weight Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #6 December 16, 2005 Brian, can you adjust the 110 exit weight to be more real world realistic and move towards a max min size of 97/105 by 500 jumps and 120 as the midline? I tend to agree that a 120 as max smallest for a little person at 500 jump is a little on the too cautious side.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrEaK_aCcIdEnT 0 #7 December 16, 2005 hope this will work... Its just a screeen shot of the chart, but i couldnt get the last few rows in. Sizing Chart Screen Shot edit: Im were i should be based on the chart. ExPeCt ThE uNeXpEcTeD! DoNt MiNd ThE tYpOs, Im LaZy On CoRrEcTiOnS! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #8 December 16, 2005 QuoteBrian, can you adjust the 110 exit weight to be more real world realistic and move towards a max min size of 97/105 by 500 jumps and 120 as the midline? I tend to agree that a 120 as max smallest for a little person at 500 jump is a little on the too cautious side. How's this?Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #9 December 16, 2005 Definitely better :-) But I'd like to see small people at least be able to do CRW before 500 jumps - the PD 113 is halfway between your sizes so they're kinda left out... (FYI - 155 exit weight is pretty much the max we put on 113's typical) W Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #10 December 16, 2005 Helps on that side, but I'm failing to see why small jumpers are only able to get to 1.1 or so and large jumpers are up to 1.76 at 500 jumps if they go for the smallest possible. I'd think that 1.5 would be about the max on the upper end... am I missing something?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #11 December 16, 2005 How common is the 113 in the general public though? I know in the CRW dog world there are'nt that many of them just floating around and for the most part you have to have one custom made to fly one.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #12 December 16, 2005 QuoteHow common is the 113 in the general public though? I know in the CRW dog world there are'nt that many of them just floating around and for the most part you have to have one custom made to fly one. We've got a few at our DZ. But you have to be real lightweight to use them, a 143 is the most common size (here at least). Maybe more lightweights need to do CRW? ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #13 December 16, 2005 An uninformed question. Should they being doing CRW at those wingloadings and speeds at that level? I know it's good for the experienced dawgs but for the newbies?I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #14 December 16, 2005 QuoteHow common is the 113 in the general public though? I know in the CRW dog world there are'nt that many of them just floating around and for the most part you have to have one custom made to fly one. It used to be that way. I had to practically promise my first-born child to PD to get one back around '96 or so, but there were at least 3 on the last record. There was at least 2 more people who could have been on 113's weight-wise but for various reasons jumped a 126 with weights instead. Of the last 4 people to dock on the 70 way, not only were all 4 small women, 2 of the 4 were jumping 113s, and 1 more could have been. I've been really pleased at the growth of the number of women doing CRW. It was only 5 years ago that I was the only female at practically every CRW camp. Now there are usually 5 or more. As the sport grows, we'll get more and more women which will make this more of an issue. I think about 10% of the 85 way was women. I remember when I first started doing CRW - (at 115 lbs) they had me jumping a Prodigy 175 with 30+ lbs of lead + gear. I didn't do very much of that because it sucked so bad and I went back to doing CRW on my Jonathan 105 (not a good plan, but I didn't know about Lightnings back then, and Spectres and Triathalons didn't exist yet.) W Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #15 December 16, 2005 We're not talking at 50 jumps here. The charts wouldn't let them jump a 1.3 wing loading at 500 jumps! There's a HUGE difference between 50 and 500. And heck - the big boys can load at something like 1.7 on this chart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #16 December 16, 2005 QuoteHelps on that side, but I'm failing to see why small jumpers are only able to get to 1.1 or so and large jumpers are up to 1.76 at 500 jumps if they go for the smallest possible. I'd think that 1.5 would be about the max on the upper end... am I missing something? Parachutes of the same design and the same wingloading will not perform the same in different sizes. In other words, a 120 is much quicker than a 170 even at the same wingloading. Smaller canopies turn faster due the the shorter lines, and have a diminished glide ratio due to the shift in the balance of drag between the jumper and the canopy. Further, size is scaled based on canopy AREA, which is a square function, while the VOLUME inside the canopy (airfoil drag) needs to scale as a cube function. In other words, when we scale a wing down based on the scale factor generated for the area, the internal volume reduces at a greater rate. Bottom line is, small parachutes can handle less wingloading if they are to perform in a similar manner. +Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #17 December 16, 2005 Quote Parachutes of the same design and the same wingloading will not perform the same in different sizes. In other words, a 120 is much quicker than a 170 even at the same wingloading. They will definitely _turn_ much faster but their forward speed is much slower. So its a trade-off - both can kill you. On the large CRW formations, the small canopies are always on the outside. That's because they are so much slower than the large ones. The big boys are up top and down the center because they're hauling ass... And having watched a lot of crash landings on Lightnings of identical wing-loadings but different sizes, the big boys look like they hurt more - most likely because of the extra speed and mass... Its a trade off though - a big boy can go to an elliptical when he wants to go "twitchier" but a small person already has twitchy but usually wants to go smaller for speed... It really is interesting watching how the relative canopy sizes in an environment when you know everyone is practically identical on the wing-loading. Everyone can smoke past me in speed, but I have much more minute control because it takes so much less effort to get my canopy to move or turn. This chart seems to not taking into account the greater forward speed of the big canopies (which can definitely kill ya) and placing all the blame for canopy problems on the twitchiness. A few months back I watched a guy loading a 190 square (Sabre 2 maybe?) just a hair over 1 smoke past me under my 1.5 loaded 99. I think the forward speed is more likely gonna cause injuries than the fact that the smaller canopies turn faster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #18 December 16, 2005 QuoteWe're not talking at 50 jumps here. The charts wouldn't let them jump a 1.3 wing loading at 500 jumps! There's a HUGE difference between 50 and 500. And heck - the big boys can load at something like 1.7 on this chart. Plus full time CRW folk tend to have a ton more canopy time than freefallers - accounting for more experience at a quicker pace._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #19 December 16, 2005 okay so according to that it states I can be at a 170 to a 150 according to my jump numbers, but since that would be a drastic downsize (im anywhere between a 190 and a 200 still because I like a forgiving fall) does that mean I need to be weaned into the 170 and such... since I am used to the bigger one? I have no plans to downsize for awhile but I am curious...Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #20 December 16, 2005 Brian - will there be more than just the chart released? I'm of the opinion that some changes need to happen - but it has to be a total culture change on the issue. In other words, I don't feel much will change if the same lack of training/education is being passed around. That just gets us ignorant pilots under larger canopies and not much else. Larger canopies will only make those with more jumps feel comfortable about what the 'kids' are doing, but it doesn't make them any less likely to screw themselves in. I've seen some very small women (90-100 lbs) start AFP on a 135 and fly it smart and safe due to the extensive education they received. Meanwhile, I watched someone pound in under a 260 that had much less instruction._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #21 December 16, 2005 Quote A few months back I watched a guy loading a 190 square (Sabre 2 maybe?) just a hair over 1 smoke past me under my 1.5 loaded 99. I think the forward speed is more likely gonna cause injuries than the fact that the smaller canopies turn faster. You're saying the speed on a 1:1 190 is greater than a 1.5 99? That just doesn't sound right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #22 December 16, 2005 QuoteYou're saying the speed on a 1:1 190 is greater than a 1.5 99? That just doesn't sound right. I read it the same way - seemed odd to me. I've jumped a ST190 at 1.5wl and it isn't fast, nor is it twitchy (it doesn't fly anything like a ST150 IMHO)._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #23 December 16, 2005 Quote You're saying the speed on a 1:1 190 is greater than a 1.5 99? That just doesn't sound right. I think it was about 1.1 but absolutely. He definitely was smoking me. I had a much greater descent rate - but forward speed absolutely. His was a 9-cell Sabre2 I believe, and mine was a 7-cell Triathalon, but you'd be surprised at how much faster the big canopies fly than the little ones.. I think most people think of little canopies as so fast because they're used to seeing average-sized males under the highest performing canopies (Velocities, Extremes etc). Throw a small 120 lb person under a Spectre and its night and day difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BGill 0 #24 December 16, 2005 at the top it states that "*Jumpers are welcome to use a larger parachute than the chart suggests.", so you're fine where you are. downsize only when you feel comfortable enough with your current canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #25 December 16, 2005 Oh I understand that part of it, what Im curious about is if I could tomorrow just go out and downsize to a 170 since according to the chart it is still a safe size for my weight? I doubt it is, but Ive wondered this oftenSudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
