twnsnd 1 #26 October 25, 2005 Yeah brother! I started doing 450s with the first 270 in front risers, and the last 180 using the new technique. Smokin! Hope things are going well for you in the cold north. -We are the Swoophaters. We have travelled back in time to hate on your swoops.- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dploi 0 #27 October 25, 2005 One thing I know for damn sure from a lot of ground launching is that leaning forward puts pressure in the front risers, giving a slightly steep angle of attack. Flying on rears while putting some pressure on the fronts will yield the "slimmest" angle of incidense relative to that angle of attack. In other words, you go faster forwards. It's not a huuuge difference... until you have to clear the treetops on a hill or the edge of a pond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcePilot 0 #28 October 26, 2005 Pilot’s body is not just one small dot of 200 lbs Pilot’s centre of mass is approximately his butt. 3 rings attached much higher If you move your butt - you move your centre of mass (centre of the gravity of the system) To reach the balance in the system centre of the gravity must be directly under the point where the lift applied to the canopy. So technically spiking you move your 3 rings forward or back under the canopy (not your butt). It affects canopy’s AoA. Live 2 Fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jannas 0 #29 November 3, 2005 Quote One thing I know for damn sure from a lot of ground launching is that leaning forward puts pressure in the front risers, giving a slightly steep angle of attack. Flying on rears while putting some pressure on the fronts will yield the "slimmest" angle of incidense relative to that angle of attack. In other words, you go faster forwards. It's not a huuuge difference... until you have to clear the treetops on a hill or the edge of a pond. Think about this one one more time, you fly on rears.. pulling the rear is the same as putting pressure on the rear.. AND you put pressure on the fronts. So you put more weight on BOTH fronts and rear? Du you gain weight by leaning forward? I don´t think so... Quote So technically spiking you move your 3 rings forward or back under the canopy This is possible IF you have a fixed link. As in grabbing the risers. Not possible if you have a loose link, dangling from you 3-rings not holding on to your risers. Only way to move your but back then is to move something else, for instance your head and chest, forward... Leaning forward will do nothing to your canopy unless you grab the risers. It will howeve give you a better position for running (at the end of a swoop or down the hill for ground launching.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #30 November 9, 2005 Imagine you're standing on a tightrope. You start to feel as though you are going to fall to one side of it. What do you do? You stick your arm out on the opposite side... maybe a leg too right? You had no leverage to stop the fall but now you are stable again somehow. What have you done to avert falling? When you lean forward in the harness, the centre of gravity of your body itself shifts. It shifts forward. Your canopy doesn't know the difference between a shift in c of g due to a change in your body position versus an actual shift of your mass and it responds by pitching upwards. This helps with flare (IS flare) without yet deforming the canopy with breaks. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #31 November 9, 2005 Quote It actually makes the canopy pitch slightly upward, which assists in the flare process while causing very little drag. It also just feels natural to do it. No Way, dude. Sorry to be direct, but I need to say something when I see a non-truth. Your weight is balanced on the confluence wrap on your risers. Leaning forward or back will not alter the center of gravity of the parachute at all. Now, that is not to say that should not bother to lean forward. There are benefits, but they are not aerodynamic in nature. By leaning forward we keep our bodies over our feet so that we will be able to avoid hitting our asses on the ground. Further, by leaning forward we are afforded better visibility, and even more importantly, we can feel what the canopy is doing. By leaning against the main lift-web of the harness, a pilot is better able to stay in touch with what the parachute is doing. Otherwise, all we feel is the legstraps. Sorry to go right at you with this one, but I need to make sure the truth gets out there. Blue Ones, +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
marks 0 #32 November 9, 2005 Quote we can feel what the canopy is doing. By leaning against the main lift-web of the harness, a pilot is better able to stay in touch with what the parachute is doing. this is also true for leaning backwards, you have the entire backpad of the harness to "feel". when i come out of my turn and am diving, i lean all the way back into the backpad, which helps to bring my legs up higher to reduce drag, then as i transfer from rears i lean way way forward, why? im not sure, but like i said early on in this thread, it makes you "feel" like you go farther because your head is farther forward. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #33 November 9, 2005 I think that everyone that is reading this thread should perform the following experiment. Fly next to another canopy, and match their forward speed and descent rate perfectly. Let things settle out for a minute. Once you have achieved "Zen", try leaning forward in the harness for ten seconds, then try leaning back. Obviously, if you reduce your body drag as you do this you will be presenting a confounding variable, so try to keep your presentation to the relative wind the same for your experimental body position. Report back with your results... +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
marks 0 #34 November 9, 2005 Quote Report back with your results... nada, zilch. a wasted jump ticket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianSGermain 1 #35 November 10, 2005 Actually, any time we focus on doing "nothing" we learn huge amounts. Holding still is the most important skill in flying in formation. More importantly, holding still allows us to calm down and wake up to what is actually happening. Let the Zen seep into your Vertebrae ... +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
jannas 0 #36 November 10, 2005 Quote No Way, dude. Sorry to be direct, but I need to say something when I see a non-truth. Your weight is balanced on the confluence wrap on your risers. Leaning forward or back will not alter the center of gravity of the parachute at all. THANK YOU BRIAN!! It bugs the hell out of me to see that "canopy pilots" actually belive they control their canopys in a way that is impossible.. As for the tight rope goose. You didn´t move your centre of gravity (seen from the ropes prespecitve). If you did you would fall of the rope. Your centre of gravity is still directly above the rope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twnsnd 1 #37 November 10, 2005 ***THANK YOU BRIAN!! It bugs the hell out of me to see that "canopy pilots" actually belive they control their canopys in a way that is impossible.. Quote If you knew I was full of shit, why didn't you have the balls to chime in at the time. You must be the type waits for a reliable source to back you up so you won't look dumb. We are all on here to learn (I hope). And sometimes we are proven very wrong. That is all. -We are the Swoophaters. We have travelled back in time to hate on your swoops.- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #38 November 10, 2005 Quote As for the tight rope goose. You didn´t move your centre of gravity (seen from the ropes prespecitve). If you did you would fall of the rope. Your centre of gravity is still directly above the rope. When somebody tells you you need good balance to walk a tightrope, what do they mean? Balance what? If you sensed that you were going to fall, it's because your centre of gravity was heading to one side of the rope, creating leverage to pivot you about your one point of contact with it, your feet. If you stuck your arm out on the opposite side and didn't fall, it's because you shifted it back to the other side momentarily, then settled it right back, top and centre. If your centre of gravity "never" moved from "directly above the rope", then we would all be able to walk a tightrope with relative ease. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jannas 0 #39 November 10, 2005 Quote If you knew I was full of shit, why didn't you have the balls to chime in at the time. You must be the type waits for a reliable source to back you up so you won't look dumb. Sorry, first time I saw this thead was the same date as my first post.... So... I kinda did actually.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dploi 0 #40 November 10, 2005 Quote Du you gain weight by leaning forward? I don´t think so...Who said anything about gaining weight? I'm talking about adjusting your canopy's AoA and AoI. There's no extra weight. There's no extra speed. There is extra lift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #41 November 10, 2005 Quote Your weight is balanced on the confluence wrap on your risers. Leaning forward or back will not alter the center of gravity of the parachute at all. Thanks, Brian. This thread has needed some well-informed opinion for quite some time. Let's all keep learning, _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanopyPiloting 0 #42 November 13, 2005 It adds much to the swoop. We teach this body position at the Ground Launch Center. Check out the November photo of the month at www.canopypiloting.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WeakMindedFool 0 #43 November 14, 2005 Damn...you beat me to it...Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #44 November 17, 2005 Quote It adds much to the swoop. We teach this body position at the Ground Launch Center. Check out the November photo of the month at www.canopypiloting.com Do you mean the photo of all 3 pilots leaning forward while also giving input on the rear risers or toggles?. Using rear risers or toggle input will change the angle of attack but I don't see leaning forward alone as doing much. As was stated earlier in this post..."Your weight is balanced on the confluence wrap on your risers. Leaning forward or back will not alter the center of gravity of the parachute at all." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #45 November 17, 2005 Quote When somebody tells you you need good balance to walk a tightrope, what do they mean? Balance what? If you sensed that you were going to fall, it's because your centre of gravity was heading to one side of the rope, creating leverage to pivot you about your one point of contact with it, your feet. If you stuck your arm out on the opposite side and didn't fall, it's because you shifted it back to the other side momentarily, then settled it right back, top and centre. If your centre of gravity "never" moved from "directly above the rope", then we would all be able to walk a tightrope with relative ease. You are talking about a dynamic situation where, to balance, the CG is continually shifting back and forth across the centerline. It would be impossible to stand, statically, on a tightrope with your CG off-center. Every seen a swingset? You can cause the swing to move by shifting your weight forward and back, but it's dynamic. You can't cause the swing to statically shift forward or backward by moving your body from a standstill. It is possible to move your CG while under canopy if you treat it like a swingset, but it's not efficient canopy flight (or even intelligent) and is not what was being inaccurately suggested here (that you can shift it one way or the other based on where you put your torso).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #46 November 17, 2005 Don't forget that the tightrope example involves the CG being above the rope, and it uses the force of gravity to introduce a side load to the rope when the CG shifts. If he could make his point with the performer hanging below the rope, then he might have something. Of course, the fact that his assertion creates a dynamic, non-sustainable situation sort of cancels out the whole point entirely (like you said). Actually, hang gliders are a perfect example of how the idea needs to work. You need a rigid structure to apply force to, using your weight as the counter. Canopies have no such structure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #47 November 17, 2005 Quote Don't forget that the tightrope example involves the CG being above the rope, and it uses the force of gravity to introduce a side load to the rope when the CG shifts. Exactly - hence the swingset example. Quote Actually, hang gliders are a perfect example of how the idea needs to work. You need a rigid structure to apply force to, using your weight as the counter. Canopies have no such structure. As discussed earlier in the thread, it is valid if you are adding weight to the rears too (though given the short distance between the rears and the 3-ring, and small amount of force on the rears, the effect is still probably very negligible).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #48 November 17, 2005 Quote As discussed earlier in the thread, it is valid if you are adding weight to the rears too (though given the short distance between the rears and the 3-ring, and small amount of force on the rears, the effect is still probably very negligible). I may have missed that part. Is the claim that by pulling the rears down, you are creating two attachment points (front to back), the three rings being the front, and your hands on the rears being the rear? If so, it's on the right track, that if you had two attachment points, and could shift weight from one the other, youcould alter the flight of the canopy. The problem is that by grabbing the rears, and 'creating' the rear attachment point, you are altering the canopy, before any weight shift can take place. This appears to be what is happening in the ground launch pics that Jim Slaton posted. While in that configuration, you may see a result coinciding with a weight shift, but thats a different set of circumsatnces, and without the 'added' attachment point, forward or rearward weight shift is not a factor. It's interesting how Brian Germains name is dropped left and right as 'the guy who wrote the book', and generally regarded as the end of the line for these sorts of disputes, but this thread soldiers on after he chimed in with the facts. Edit: What you would need to make this work is a mechanical device of some sort. Picture a pair of bars if you will, maybe three inches long, with the front riser attached to the front, and the rears to the back. These would rest on your shoulders, with an attachment to the harness (above the three ring) that allows for the bar to slide forward and back. When the bar is in the 'back' position, with the attachment point at the front of the bar, the canopy would be trimmed very steeply, for long dives (and big speed). Shifting the bar to the 'front' position would re-trim the enitre canopy, allowing it to plane out with no other (speed robbing) input. Until you can vary the attachment piont of the canopy to the harness relative to the canopy, you're just dead weight in the harness (in a front to back sense). How to make the bar and attachemnt point, and how to operate it without killing lots of people? It might be impossible. I know I won't be one of the first 1000 people to try it, thats for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #49 November 17, 2005 Quote While in that configuration, you may see a result coinciding with a weight shift, but thats a different set of circumsatnces, and without the 'added' attachment point, forward or rearward weight shift is not a factor. That is a really good point. Even if you do get into a configuration (fronts and rears) where you can shift weight, the major results you see will not be from the CG shift, they will be from the control inputs you inevitably make while shifting weight. Pulling down on your rears with 10% of your body weight is a very small CG shift (as noted before, rears and 3-rings are close, and portion of 3-ring load goes straight to rears anyway), but it is a very substantial control input that changes the canopy's shape much moreso than it changes its orientation. Which brings us back to your point about a rigid structure being needed. EDIT: Quote What you would need to make this work is a mechanical device of some sort. Picture a pair of bars if you will, maybe three inches long, with the front riser attached to the front, and the rears to the back. These would rest on your shoulders, with an attachment to the harness (above the three ring) that allows for the bar to slide forward and back. Sounds like you're describing the controls kitesurfers use. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #50 November 17, 2005 Yeah, I've seen those before. Thats the idea. Now we need to attach it to a harness so you can deploy it, cut it away, operate it without using your hands, and make sure everything happens symetrically. Like I said, someone else go first, I'll shoot video. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
