yoink 321 #51 January 27, 2004 Is there a minimum WL for canopies? Not about the backing up issue, but design-wise.. Would a really lightly loaded canopy have tendency to deform in even gentle winds? Asking just for interest... Cheers Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #52 January 27, 2004 QuoteIs there a minimum WL for canopies? Not about the backing up issue, but design-wise.. Would a really lightly loaded canopy have tendency to deform in even gentle winds? Asking just for interest... Cheers Will When I first started out...I flew a Manta 288. My exit weight is 160-165 with that rig on (I weigh around 135). There were times when I thought I was NEVER going to come down. Where if there was more than a whisper of a breeze, that turning cross wind I could actually gain altitude. Every single time I landed that, I was in the air for quite a while by myself...and everyone else was already in and packing their gear before I even thought about touching down. the one thing that I noticed when moving to a smaller canopy for the first time...was controllability. With that enormous 288, I would push the toggle all the way to my ankles, and could count 1-2-3 before even a slight gentle turn was made. very sluggish. When I went to the Nav220....enormous different. When I pushed a toggle down - it actually turned!!! I could actually spiral! I couldn't spiral the 288...I could do a slow lazy turn around and around..but not really a spiral. And flare? the 288 wouldn't really flare for me...not that I really needed it to, it was so slow. But when I felt a "flare" for the first time it kinda surprised me...I'd never felt LIFT before!! -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #53 January 27, 2004 I was wondering more about safety issues such as the likelyhood of the canopy collapsing in gusts / turbulence... Logic would suggest that a canopy needs a certain weight suspended beneath it to remain in shape, especially with F-111 gear... But then my logic has always been suspect! It is kinda nice to get off the big gear and feel the canopy do what you want it to isn't it? But as has been said before in this thread, that extra responsiveness can hurt if you get it wrong... Take Care Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #54 January 27, 2004 QuoteIs there a minimum WL for canopies? Not about the backing up issue, but design-wise.. Would a really lightly loaded canopy have tendency to deform in even gentle winds? Asking just for interest... Cheers Will From what I've heard terribly underloading some canopies can be bad. You can get incomplete inflation of the canopy (particularly end cells) and the can respond negatively and even deflate in turbulence. But that's just second hand from a newbie, I don't have any personal experience with underloading canopies. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #55 January 27, 2004 QuoteIs there a minimum WL for canopies? Not about the backing up issue, but design-wise.. Would a really lightly loaded canopy have tendency to deform in even gentle winds? Some canopies have them. Others don't The Stiletto, Sabre2, Spectre basicly everything they make are listed as VLC (Varies with landing conditions) Velocities are the only listed with a min weight. The min weight being a 1:1 WL. So most canopies don't have Min wingloads...Some do. I don't buy that a higher loaded canopy is safer in turbulent winds....Turbulance can take out an aircraft and it has solid wings....If its that turbulant you probably should not be jumping anyway. Besides with all open nosed canopies they don't have anything keeping the air in anyway really. Airlocked and to a lesser extent Crossbraced canopies have closed noses...They WILL help in light turbulance. I have seen people land Tandem mains solo...And the Military has 300+ sized mains. Yes, sometimes it can be hard to inflate the end cells...but I have never seen a real danger of collapse."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #57 January 27, 2004 QuoteWhere if there was more than a whisper of a breeze, that turning cross wind I could actually gain altitude. No comments from the peanut gallery on that?? But yeah, I agree with elfanie on the suckiness of manta 288s. I only have 2 jumps on them, loaded at about 0.45, and the lack of control was really kind of scary compared to the PD230s I was used to at the time. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #58 January 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot meaning to be a snooty snoo here, but isn't it weight/sqft... giving you pounds to square feet? That's how you calculated it later in your post but I didn't want anyone getting confused good catch. Its fixed. What do you want? Im at work. Now all I need is Kallend comming in and telling me I got some physics wrong. I didn't notice any physics.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #59 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn some situations a larger canopy can be the more dangerous...... Are you suggesting that the jumpers that were backing up under larger canopies would have been safer had they been jumping smaller canopies for that jump? Derek I have suggested nothing, merely pointed out one incident where larger canopy's with lighter wingloadings didnt give the jumpers the accustomed to margin for error. The fault was theirs for not picking safe landing area's soon enough, Backing up under canopy can be quite disconcerting but can be done accurately and safely RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
