skreamer 1 #51 June 4, 2003 Plus, I'm sure lots of people can pull off monster swoops when there is no pressure. Maybe a different story when it is in competition? I'm sure lots of tennis players play their best tennis on the practice courts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #52 June 4, 2003 I have a quick question. People say ah it doesnt "count" its downwind, etc. I understand this thinking. My question is how much does downwind help your swoop? A lot? Is it enough to want to swoop downwind when youre just out for the weekend messing around? I would assume the speed is a lot faster, the distance on average further, which equals more fun. So how is it, do you swoop downwind for fun? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #53 June 4, 2003 QuoteSo how is it, do you swoop downwind for fun? Well first you do a hookturn,, and finish off down wind... and away you go!!! Note: The end result is not always fun. Kinda like poking out an eye.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #54 June 4, 2003 On a downwind swoop you will swoop for the same period of time but the downwind component can be added as is to your airspeed making your new ground speed that much higher. Since your ground speed is higher you cover more distance. The downside is your touchdown speed is higher too. If you can handle it by sliding your feet through it or if your canopy is slower to begin with due to a light wingloading (like 2.2 or less) then its no big deal. Its hard to convince me to do a downwind on purpose in winds greater than 8 miles per hour. I can do it safely but typically I won't stay on my feet and that sucks.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #55 June 4, 2003 So you're moving with the wind? Let me try to get this straight in my head. 5 mph winds, you swoop in, once you flare all the way and touch down you will still be moving 5 mph with the wind. So going downwind your touchdown speed is the wind speed, theoretically? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #56 June 4, 2003 Yo Psycho >If you can handle it by sliding your feet through it or if your canopy is slower to begin with due to a light wingloading (like 2.2 or less) Lets clarify that 2.2 is not a light wingload. It's just not maxed out. ... working on chair design...My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #57 June 4, 2003 Yes your moving with the wind. Just like a boat on river with the current will have the speed increased by the current speed. If in no wind when you flared all the way you reached a speed of x MPH. Then with a 5 mile per hour down wind you would be going x + 5 MPH. When you start dragging your feet this whole equation gets thrown out the window for other reasons. It gets complicated I will let somebody else try to explain that one. But anyway my canopy without dragging my feet will probably stall near 10 MPH. So if I had to run 15 MPH it would be unpleasant, 18 I might not be able to do and more than that, well you get the picture.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #58 June 4, 2003 I think that is relative. But in anycase I think a 2.2 wingloading can definately be landed in a 10 MPH downwind without sliding it in and without falling. At least I know I could do it.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #59 June 4, 2003 I didn't say is not landable, It's just not light. I suppose relative to a 4.0 wingload it's pretty light but that's not the point. Any way I'm not into debating that. Mines around 2.25 to one. I certainly wouldn't classify it as a light wingload. I'd classify it as a good wingload for what I want out of my parachute. I could easily fly a smaller one. You are stating that you could land in 10 mph down wind and stand it up. that does not make it a light wingload. Higher wingloads and higher wind speeds have very successfully been stood up. Any way ... that's off topic . === Andy2, yes assuming you could bring your parachute to zero wind speed you'd still be traveling the 5MPH the tail wind is pushing you. - -My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #60 June 4, 2003 QuoteIt was done downwind. In that case, does it really matter?I'm wondering what the winds were. My honest, no wind swoop is 200 feet. But when the wind is 20+ knots on the ground, I can scream it to almost/about 300 feet, but there's no way I could get that without the wind assistance. In a hurricane, I could probably get 1,000 foot swoop and then explode. And then these giant red bears would start fighting. Man, hurricanes are awesome."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #61 June 5, 2003 That all will come down math and what a joy math is. Bigger canopies have a tendency to swoop slower for a longer period of time from the same approach. Sometimes longer but not always. Now if you take two senarios it will all be clear. Don't get hung up on the numbers because I don't have exact ones but you can still see the point. Suppose canopy A was wingloaded X and canopy B was wingloaded at X + Y: (Y > 0). Canopy A, from an approach, might surf at and average speed of 20 miles per hour for a period of 6 seconds. Meanwhile, canopy B might go at an average of 40 miles per hour for a period of 3 seconds. Given this case they are both swooping the same distance. But now throw a 20 MPH downwind in. Canopy A will go and average of 40 mph for 6 seconds and Canopy B will go 60 miles per hour for 3 seconds. In this case canopy A will go further. So it follows that a lighter wingloading will benifit more from a downwind componet. The reverse is true going upwind but unless the upwind is quite significant the results are quite minimal. I don't think they would have a competition with a 20 MPH headwind all the people loading in the low 2s would be wining about it, at least I think that.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Watcher 0 #62 June 5, 2003 about 3-5 mph downwind, not significant to give an extra push an extra 80 feet that was the old record. Well the one held by Clint (?), Ian held it at 376 for about 1 min, before shannon blew by him. --Jonathan Bartlett D-24876 AFF-I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeedToJump 0 #63 June 5, 2003 I heard that at the meet that Shannon got 418 that JC got something around 407 but missed the entry gate so it didn't count. I also was told that none of the super long swoops looked like anything spectacular, just a swoop that happened to set the distance record. I wasn't there and I could easily be wrong though. No disrespect meant to any of the swoopers, just posting what I was told...Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ivanrockon 0 #64 June 5, 2003 Either way, the video will be something nice to see. From where I'm from we are not used to see this type of 300+ft swoops (and lots of people fit in this category too). So I guess the video should be shared in order for other to benefit of such accomplishment. Upwind, crosswind, downwind doesn't matter, a lot of people want to see it. At least I do. Ivan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #65 June 6, 2003 Rock on Ivan! The spectacular part is that it was a 418 foot swoop! No flames shooting out of his butt or anything - he hit 5 FOOT ENTRY GATES and LANDED 418 FEET later! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 63 #66 June 6, 2003 QuoteI know this happened a while ago, but I've always wanted to see it. Is there video anywhere on the internet of Shannon's super-long, 418 ft. swoop???? Attention everybody: we are approaching the milestone in this thread - almost 5000 views. ?!?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #67 June 7, 2003 I get the feeling by the time we get this video the record will be broke --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #68 June 7, 2003 Why is this video so important? Yes, its a very long swoop, but there is a lot of video floating around of 300+ footers that will impress you more since they are over terrain or ditches or something. Compared to the distance rounds those are a lot more fun to watch.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #69 June 7, 2003 I just wanted to jump on the bandwagon and complain, in actuality I like the FAST SHORT swoops, those are the coolest to watch...yep... --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casch 0 #70 June 7, 2003 The only "Fast and Short" swoops I've seen are ones where something got in the way...like the ground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #71 June 7, 2003 yeah, those are no fun, and after watching a short crash clip over and over I sorta realize its impossible to learn anything from it except DONT DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Trying to learn what he did wrong with the risers/toggles/harness shifts on a crappy video file is an exercise in futility... --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #72 June 8, 2003 You will learn more at your student level by watching accuracy landings than you will watching hard core swooping. Personally I'd like to do more CReW (only did beginner's intro course), you learn a lot from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #73 June 10, 2003 Its amazing when you think that these swoops are longer than the original flight by the Wright brothers in 1903...100 yrs exactly. I doubt Wilbur and Orville would ever have dreamt such a thing could happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Professor 0 #74 June 11, 2003 Quote but unless the upwind is quite significant the results are quite minimal. The magnitude of the effect would be the same as downwind, for a given swoop, going downwind will add the same distance that going upwind would subtract. Ted Like a giddy school girl. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #75 June 11, 2003 Yeah you're right. But since people typically land into the wind that advantage is kind of expected. On the other hand a downwind component during a competition is like an unexpected treat for a competitor with a lighter loading.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
