sundevil777

Because I started on rounds, and because I'm weird, it is likely my formal training/what I do is not SOP.. I always, always grab the toggles right away, after opening shock. sometimes before it completes sniveling. I cannot remember a time when it seemed that I ever missed cleanly grabbing even one of them. I don't need to look at the toggles to get them, they are nice stay open type and they just seem to fall into my hands. I often go into deep brakes immediately, reducing speed for a few seconds to identify other canopies and other, later groups in freefall, and I like having that level of control without any delay. i understand scenarios where things could go bad compared to grabbing rear risers. It kinda hit me in the last couple years, figuring I'm kinda unusual in this regard. Or maybe not so? Please let me know what you think, Of course I want to discuss, but don't try too hard to get me to change my ways.

The Firebolt from jumpshack/parachute labs I believe is also low bulk due to hybrid fabric construction (at least it used to be). I believe they make them in larger sizes.

I found the Z1 to be the best fit for my large head, and I used it for about 10 years. Even the largest G3 would not allow for the width across my ears. The audible pocket on mine also got stretched out over time, and I did not like the distortion from the updated visor, which I used for one season. I've never had either visor on the Z1 open during freefall. I sold my old Z1 helmet with both visors and a nice helmet bag, which was in really great condition except for the drawstring cord being broken. There was no interest in the helmet until I eventually lowered the price down to $80. I really like my new Kiss helmet, no visor distortion, easy to use, love that audibles are securely held, not just in a pocket, and camera accessories are available. Only the price is bad.

Therefore, when in the low basement and wanting the reserve out, throw out the main pc and cutaway in one smooth motion...problem solved

Looking farther out doesn't have to mean really far. All things in moderation...

I think keeping this earlier thread going would be better: A thread I started about chinmount alterrnatives

go to chinmount.com The guy makes really high quality parts. The design is well thought out. I had to get one with a greater possible angle "upwards" than normal. Apparently I fly with my head tilted down more than others.

Many, including myself, have found that an audible is easier to hear with earplugs. The Optima works very well in a KISS. I consider it to be internally mounted, but externally accessible.

Don't buy it, they have a bad reputation for stalling suddenly on landing. That reputation seems to be well deserved. Pass and move on...

Do you mean Charlie Merritt's Sky Hi Pioneer Sport Parachute Club?

From any of the manufacturers, the canopy models that are made in the bigger sizes are appropriate for the up and coming jumper. That would exclude outliers like CRW and accuracy canopies. Therefore you have lots of choices that would very likely be great for you.

If a person is doing "pull-ups" on the front risers, they are being pulled down. It may not feel like you're pulling the fronts down, but if you are going up, then so are your rear risers relative to the fronts, so the same thing happens. At least that is how I see it, correct me if wrong. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

I have a memory of an old thread here that was all about the gunk in the housings. I remember the general conclusion from that thread was that the gunk is basically a lubricant, and cleaning it is probably counterproductive from a pull force standpoint. Of course the lubricant attracts dirt, but other lubricants do also. I think it is quite likely that other rig mfgs are unaware of the need to clean the housings because there is no need to clean the housings. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

I remember Bill Booth saying that he chose the right side because many people look over their right shoulder to see the PC pulling the bag out, therefore the left side risers are lower, therefore more load on the left risers. If the left riser is consistently loaded more, then it makes sense to put the RSL on the right. The Infinity also has the RSL on the right riser. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

The movie Gypsy Moths got me hooked. I saw it when I was about 7, and I bet my sister right then that I would do it when I grew up. The weekend I turned 18 in 1980 - did my 1st static line. I was upset they didn't check my ID, so I could have done it before. I already had read a bunch about it, knew a lot of the stuff in the first jump course, and the gear did not inspire confidence it looked like it had been dragged through the Arizona desert and so old looking. "Refrigerator" Bob Sprague was my instructor. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

To say that the upper surface of a wing provides any certain percentage, whether it is 60 or 80% or whatever, of the lift I think is misleading. I can understand it is convenient to describe it this way, but I still think it worthwhile to discuss how it is misleading. I believe it is correct to say there is a pressure difference between upper and lower surface, and the pressure difference is greatest closer to the leading edge, and the pressure difference compared to ambient pressure is greatest on the upper surface. I believe it is correct to say the clean air flow on the upper surface is more important in creating this difference in pressure compared to clean air flow on the lower surface, but I think it is misleading to summarize this by saying the upper surface contributes 60 or 80 or whatever percentage of the lift. To get back to the OP's original question...perhaps a lower surface that leaks air actually contributes to the higher pressure below the lower surface, so a non-zero porosity lower skin could increase lift? That seems like an important issue to discuss, no? Perhaps my unease about this description is just an irrelevant point of semantics, but the engineering part of my brain seems troubled by it. Maybe this is something that should not cause me grief, as it reminds me of having beers with my friends after classes arguing why a beer bottle has a delayed foam-over when slapped on top by another beer. I also have a mechanical engineering background. I'm open to being convinced it is correct to say the upper skin contributes a certain percentage of the lift, but please consider what I've written, and understand I'm not intentionally trying to insult anyone. Merry Christmas! People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

From where does this theory come? People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Can you elaborate on that? Why? P.S. I'm in Tucson. "Go Wildcats!" But I am not that bad, I married an ASU grad... Dacron absorbs some energy on hard openings. I haven’t had any hard openings since going to Dacron, perhaps because they have more friction against the slider. I also like that Dacron doesn’t get snagged on Velcro or sticks/brush or anything else like spectra does. Search on bill booth and Dacron to read more. U of A beat ASU in their otherwise undefeated 1986 season when I graduated, but not this year! People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

If you’re wanting lower than usual pack volume, the silhouette, pilot 7 or 9 cell in lpv or zpx versions, or firebolt. Many report 7 cell canopies are smaller packing than a 9 cell counterpart, so a spectre or other all zp could be a candidate. There are so many other choices from all the mfgs. Any canopy that is offered in sizes up to 210 might be available larger if special ordered. Don’t bother with those only offered up to a 170 or whatever. The firebolt includes standard sizes up to 272. Even though the pack volume is more, I’m glad I switched to Dacron lines on my pilot 210zpx. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

The canopies that are a mix of fabric are ZP on the top skin only, with the small exception of some base canopies that might have ZP just near the leading edge of the top skin. Like you, I like non-stressful, easy to execute, soft landings. I think a Navigator is actually not the best for what you want. There are many other canopies not specifically marketed for students that I think will likely provide better performance but are not intended as swooping machines. I think that using non-zero porosity fabric on the lower skin does not result in lower performance over time. When a wing is flying at high angles of attack (such as during a flared landing), it is very important that the airflow over the top of the wing stay "attached"/not separate from the surface of the wing. If air is leaking out through the top skin fabric too much, then I think it has the effect of separating the airflow. Conditions on the bottom skin of the wing are very different, with separation not being an issue, so leakage through non-ZP fabric on the bottom doesn't matter. If it was possible to actually suck air into the wing through/from the top skin, then you get the ability to produce good lift at even higher angles of attack, as the airflow stays attached when it otherwise would not. This has been done on some experimental airplanes, including a Boeing 757 testbed that had part of the wing drilled with very tiny holes and a vacuum applied to suck air into the wing. So, air leaking out through the fabric matters a lot for the top skin, but not for the bottom, as long as it is not so much that cell pressurization suffers. That's my theory on why non zp is being applied on bottom skins, and I think it makes sense. In my previous life I was a mechanical design engineer, even did such for the Boeing company. edit- I believe some mfgs make canopies in larger sizes than advertised if you make the request. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Or, most people find things ok the way they are. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

The lack of participation in the vote can be seen as an endorsement for how things are. I see nothing wrong with that. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

The link below does a good job of explaining it by the guy that wrote the software. He mentions the reprogramming that had to done for the abort switch while Apollo 14 was on the way to the moon that the HBO series did such an interesting job of depicting. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html It was all just one of the many things that would confuse people that hadn't consumed everything they could in popular media about the moon missions. Like the guys that were killed flying the T38, my friend was confused by that. It is not at all obvious that to the uninformed viewer that the astronauts did a lot of flying themselves around from place to place in little jets. The film seemed in some instances to rely on the viewer having in-depth knowledge of the history from those years, but in so many other ways insults the intelligence of such a viewer. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

It was horrible. It was soooo irritating! So much over the top unrealistic vibration. From the X-15, even before release from the B52, gemini, and apollo, with a philosophy of "if a little bit of something is good, then a lot of it must be better". So stupid. If I had kept my eyes on the screen during all of it I might have gotten motion sickness. We're supposed to believe that the X-15 just barely cleared a ridgeline with trees before smashing out of control (but staying right-side-down on the skids) on the dry lake bed. So much unrealistic maneuvering, like when they showed the attitude indicator do a 180 in about 1/4 of a second when it was steady just before. Just prior to landing, they intentionally make it look like their horizontal speed is so very fast, then it is zero the very next second. Anyone that has seen the real video of it knows it wasn't anything like that. They had him stepping on to the moon's surface not from the last rung of the ladder, but from the round pad of the lander - just inches from the surface. That seems to contradict one of the most historic moments ever caught on camera. So much jittery camera, swooshing around camera, unnecessary zoom in and out. It would seem that when in doubt, constant motion is what makes a good film. So many shots of eye/eyes/face ultra close ups. They even went to the trouble of getting his eyelashes backlit. That is so stupid. Perhaps the editors have instructions from the director that an eyeball must fill the screen every 30 seconds. So many times they were supposed to be piloting a vessel in the dark, how could they have seen anything? Even the control panels were dark. So typical of modern tv and cinema, everything is dark, except for when constantly placing the sun or other bright lights in the shot to blind the viewer. So either ultra dark or blindingly bright is the modern cinematic default. So much irritating and stupid nonsense. I wasn't all that impressed with The Right Stuff, but the HBO From the Earth to the Moon, now that was done right. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

You are I think assuming a lapse rate which is constant. Perhaps, or even maybe likely, the protrack is using a lapse rate which isn't quite linear. If you have the software from L&B, you don't have to use excel to crunch the numbers. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am