kaerock

I believe there is more to it than what is apparent. Consider this: Bush is so criticized for this so that they ask Franks to admit it was his fault, rather than Bush's, alleviating some burden of criticism from Bush. It's a classic magic card trick. "My right hand is doing something, but HEY, look at my left hand, it's doing something WAY more interesting!" This is just more political maneuvering to draw the American public's attention away from the fact that Bush attempted to fool them into thinking that the war was over when it clearly wasn't (and isn't). He wasn't misled, it was a deliberate political stunt that failed and they're trying to clean up the mess. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

It appears your perspective has a short attention span. I understand that it is a long article, but perhaps reading it my cause you to lend yourself to forming more than just a trite response. This is more complicated than a "if you don't like X, don't buy/use it" scenario. Financing refineries has less to do with genitalia and more to do with maximizing profit, apparently. Bill, I agree, but if enough people wake up from their apathy and become enraged at this kind of swindling, they can affect change. Unfortunately, too many people are chasing their tails and running the rat race to see the bigger picture. If gas prices increase gradually, it's less shocking and people are less apt to rebuke petroleum companies. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Is it portraying the country in a negative light, or those who are at the helm doing what moveon may feel is akin to running it into the ground? -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Here's an interesting article I stumbled upon regarding oil companies profiting like mad from our pockets. http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2004/gupta0804.html excerpt: * ChevronTexaco’s profit jumped 33 percent to $2.56 billion and profits for its U.S. division for oil refining quadrupled from the same period last year to $276 million this year * ConocoPhillips, the biggest refiner and fuel marketer in the United States, also had a profit increase of 33 percent to $1.62 billion * ExxonMobil, the world’s largest corporation, raked in profits of $5.44 billion from January to March 2004, more than its entire 2002 total If you weren't mad enough as it were. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Well, I've never really listened to John Mellencamp, but, just to clarify a point: Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" is one of the most catchy patriot songs in modern music...or is it? I've heard an acoustic rendition of that song, by him, that chills the bones with the seething tone in his voice. It is, and was not, a patriotic song. It was a song about being poor in the USA, going to Vietnam, coming back and being screwed further. His music champions the working-class, those who are quite frequently duped by the ruling-elite via FUD and patriotism to carry out dubious agendas. I don't think many of those singers were recent converts to lefty/liberal, they probably always were and no one ever noticed, and their music was made safe for general consumption. Whether or not the fully support Kerry, they probably all realize that Bush needs to go, and this is how they feel they can affect that change. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Yea, you need a LOT of speed. The faster you get, the deeper you can take your carves. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

The pack volume for a Vengence 120 is more than a typical 9-cell due to the airlocks...It probably packs up like a 135-150 regular 9-cell, so a 170 isn't a big stretch. My Samurai 105 packs up much more like my old Stiiletto 135 than my old Stiletto 120. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

I think the real difference this is that you get a flatter canopy when you pull them apart. Flatter canopy == more lift. Similar theory to the triple-risers or flaring outward rather than downward. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Perhaps spending your time more fruitfully rather than whining here about what people are selling on ebay is in order? I'm sure there are some unwoven baskets out there calling your name, or even unpicked noses for that matter. -R Picking noses, friends and friend's noses since 1975. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Will this include an E-line (or equiv.) as well? -Rory You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Firstly, the jump-number comment is a crock of shit, please don't include un-informed subjective judgments in technical discussions. Secondly, your explanation requires a retort. The 'stair-step' effect and canopy distortion from a riser is so minimal, I don't think it matters. What does matter is that you are travelling at a higher speed and have less time between a de-stabilizing wind-gust and hitting the ground. A gust hitting the top-skin of the canopy while you are in a vertical dive I believe is also minimal as your canopy is travelling quite fast at that point, generating a LOT of lift in the opposite direction of this wind-gust, I think it's negligible. If you are getting significant uneven pressure on one side due to something like a rotor, or a cross-wind gust you might experience a partial collapse. If you've ever watched people single or double front-riser a landing, you will not see a major distortion of the canopy. Riser movement is very subtle and most of the time you can't even tell what someone is doing if you're watching it from the ground. The problem isn't the distortion of the canopy when hitting turbulence, it's what your angle, speed, altitude and direction are when the gust hits you. -Rory Are your jump numbers mis-typed? If not, then you should definately not be doing the kind of turns you are describing. Think about the angle that your canopy takes as it is diving towards the ground. The steeper the dive, the more the top skin is exposed to the relative wind (possibly the wrong term here). The stronger the wind gust, the more it is going to push on the top of your canopy. If you have one or both front risers pulled down is creates a stair step in your canopy. Think about it, the front risers are only attached to the A and B lines right? Well, that is half of your canopy from nose to tail. Between the B & C lines is where the biggest cell distortion is. That area can also serve as a pivot point for the front half of the canopy to be forced under the rear. Excuse my rough explanation. Anyone care to re-inforce or shoot it down? You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Great pics! Nearly all of them look frameable. :> -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Those are so small they're nearly impossible to make out. Granted my screen resolution is pretty high, but the pics are still tiny. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

I suppose it depends on how much a length difference there is. Longer lines will give you a longer recovery arc, and shorter lines will make the canopy feel more responsive... which is what I hear are the are the performance differences between the two. I wasn't able to find the line trim charts for the Katana, so I can't compare with any certainty, the Samurai ones were easy to come by. It'd be nice to get a side-by-side comparison. After looking at some some docs on both canopies, at the same area they have different aspect ratios and wing-spans...makes me wonder now... -R -R I can't say for sure (Haven't flown either yet) but I'd venture a guess that changing the lines will make them fly quite differently. Blues, Ian You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

I've not flown the Katana at all, but from a VERY reputable source: the canopies are nearly identical except that the Katana has longer lines and is missing the airlocks. I'd venture to say they perform quite similarly. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Well, I don't think it's possible to get "100% from a canopy". The point is to have fun and be safe doing it. If feel very safe but the canopy isn't fun, you'll never get 100% from it. Having a checklist of things that you should be able to consistently accomplish is a good way to measure your skill on the canopy, but if it isn't fun anymore...well then...there you go :> Brian Germain breaks it down as sort of path...perceived risk versus perceived skill. In the middle, you have equal amounts, it seems fun, still challenging, but not overwhelming. One one side, if there is more risk than skill, it's scary and uncomfortable. On the other side, if there is more skill than risk, it's boring. If you FEEL that you can handle your canopy and then some, you probably could, but is that your goal...more, faster? With more speed comes more danger and more responsibility...can you handle that? You need to ask yourself that. Hey, some people get their jollies by stopping on a dime every time. Some people get their jollies by scraping their toes over the water at 50MPH, some people just want to get down. What's your goal? Will your canopy help you achieve that goal? There's your 100% rule :> -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Absolutely. If you were to hit some really bad chop at a higher speed, you may make it through, or, you may screw yourself faster than you can get yourself out of it. But also, a 727 is a LOT faster than a 182 on landing..but yay for inertia! -R Radically changing the shape of your airfoil in those conditions isn't truely wise, though. A moderately agressive front riser manuever combined with a weird gust or rotar could spell disaster. You know when I feel most stable under canopy in weird winds? When I'm doing a tandem, all of that mass moving through the air. Think of it like a 727 coming in to land compared to a 182. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

As an answer to the specific question "Are certain x-braces more sensitive to side winds or collapsing at low speeds." -- possibly. Can I state the for sure, not at all. This is really determined by engineering and design of the canopy. While it is likely that some canopies have attributes that make the more susceptible to unusual winds, for example, I've heard that the Crossfire's bottom edge is more curved, allowing the bottom skin to actually develop lift in some cases, causing the canopy's lines to become un-taut and making it a ripe situation for collapse. This situation was not, I believe, due to a design defect really, but more likely due to weather conditions and possibly the pilot. Lots of people fly a Xaos and do some wild shit and usually end up *ok*. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Right, but why do you think the steeper trim makes it less susceptible to collapses? If you take two canopies of the exact same size and exact same planform, but trim them differently, they will have different glide rates. The steeper one will be faster. Generally when you have more speed you seem less susceptible to gusts and funky winds. Also, the canopy is highly pressurized as the pressure on the front cell-openings is higher than say, at a canopy flying near it's stall point..here is more RAM in your AIR :> When your wing is stiffer, you're less likely to have it go limp and put you into an uncontrollable state. This is also why we teach people to fly at full speed, rather than being braked in gusty situations. Perhaps someone can articulate better than I would, why having a higher forward speed seems to make you less affected my squirrely winds. It's a feeling akin to "slicing through it", you spend less time in the pocket of "bad air". -R AFAIK, the canopy that is trimmed the flattest, is more sensitive to collapse than a canopy that is trimmed a little steeper. So, theoretically, the Velocity would be less sensitive to collapse than the VX/Xaos. I'm not sure about VX versus Xaos, but I would completely trust those two canopies just the same. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Could this possibly have to do with wing-loading and speed at with which you're using toggles to flare? If you've got a higher loading on your x-brace, you're going faster than your Stiletto...this would lend itself to causing more force necessary to deflect the wing as well as having to counteract the increased lift due to that speed. On a related note, front risers are impossible to hold down at some point when extending a dive...eventually you'll have so much speed, causing so much lift that your body strength is less than the force of lift. Just some speculation on observations...perhaps someone can drop some real fizzix. :> -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

You can check the line-trim yourself. It is quite possible to manufacture the canopy slightly out of trim, quality assurance isn't absolute. It's not too difficult check...tie your three rings together to verify that they are completely even, then grab the outside line on your front left riser and the outside line of the front right riser from the slink or link, then run them up to the canopy and verify that the bartacks are at the same place and the lines are the same length when they attach to the canopy. Do this for each line, grabbing it's mirror, not forgetting to check the stabilizers as well. -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Also, verify that your leg-straps are even. This can cause a shift in your harness without you realizing it. -R reply]I will do that and see what they think as well. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

HEY, don't forget the airlocks! can't beat that...you'll have more of an edge in funky air situations...everyone could use an edge in a funky situation. Did you get the Lotus MAX? enjoy the hell outta of it :> -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Really, the best possible thing you can do is ask a very experienced canopy pilot or instructor for some help. Have them video your landing and go over it with you, frame-by-frame. You learn loads by watching yourself landing and having someone with a lot of experience say, "oh, look what you did there...", sometimes you don't need another person to point out some of your obvious mistakes :> I'm sure there's plenty of swell folks there that would be willing to take a few minutes out of their day to give you some help. Good luck, -Rory Good question. . .I didn't think to check that - which is kinda funny because when I got my 210, the first thing I noticed was how LONG my brake lines were. When I had them checked they were 5 inches out of trim. . .lol! I will take a look on next flight. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

I took a formal seminar from Brian and a couple of informal sessions, I had 500-700 jumps during this time was focusing on high-performance landings. I got an immeasurable amount of knowledge from him and I improved immensely. At the same time, my girlfriend that had 100-200 jumps took even more time with Brian and improved drastically as well, from doing basic landings to learning how a swoop works...after that she started nailing some really great swoops (she learned to swoop with a very light wing-loading even!). He'll help you bump up your skill-level several notches, regardless of what your goal is, beginner to advanced. Just be prepared to be amazed, amused and enlightened. The seminar will discuss more than just mechanics and physics, it'll also delve into some psychology and how people learn, perceive danger and risk. It's sort of a holistic approach to canopy flying, so you'll get a lot more than you anticipated, and be able to apply it to more than just flying a parachute around. It's worth the money, and it's cool. :> -R You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE