murps2000

I have a few hundred jumps on a Batwing 134. I thought it was a decent canopy for its day, but there are better to be had. Still, at 1.4 WL, I think it would challenge most intermediate level canopy pilots out there that often seek out more modern designs. It's dated technology, but still worthy of respect. It will dive if you want it to. Be careful with it. Also you should note that if you tell other jumpers you fly a Batwing, it's very unlikely that they will think you are cool, despite whatever risk you may incur. Instead, they will probably look at you funny. In fact, like some that I have met, they may be unnecessarily cruel. Good luck and godspeed...

Nice story! Way to cheat death. Was it acid, or something? (On the reserve, not lysergic) BTW, I once met a 1st jump student who had a cutaway on all the jumps he ever did. All one of them. He left the sport with a 1:1 jump/cutaway ratio. Cutaways rule. I got to jump the Strong Tridem rig a few years back, and if I had one of those, I'd do a cutaway every weekend. Just like a balloon jump.

This brings up another point...why aren't people controlling their canopy after they land on windy days? No matter how windy it is when I jump, as soon as I'm down I pivot and start reeling in a toggle. The canopy dives into the ground and collapses. I've even done that with a demo canopy with airlocks.*** This is exactly what I've been thinking as I've read this thread. I've done this on a tandem (after flying into the landing area backwards, too). It can be done. You don't have to run around the canopy either. You & the passenger may fall on your asses, but the canopy can be shagged pretty quickly if you prepare yourself for it and reel in a steering line at touchdown. And I would make every attempt to avoid landing directly upwind of tarmac to begin with. Cutaway? Maybe if the canopy hooked a spinning prop or the bumper of a passing car, but otherwise I don't get it. But then again, I guess it is pretty windy in Texas..

Grappa. Anything else is okay.

1)My great grandfather used to hang out with Babe Ruth. 2)I was kicked out of the Webelos. Great thread...

Orval, Chimay, or Corsendonk, all from Belgium. Stuff's almost like fine champagne.

Also Love Black and Tans (Bass/Guinness) and Irish Car Bombs *** Car bombs... ow...

Just wondering what you guys thought... *** Yes, definitely. I'll be getting recurrent this weekend, hopefully. I don't mind. It's a chance for me and my girl to get some great handi-cam video.

1st elliptical jump was #242 on a Stiletto 170 at about 1.4 WL. I was impressed. Stayed on a Spectre 190 at 1.2 till #440 when I bought the Stiletto. I believe the Vengeance is somewhat of an aggressively trimmed elliptical. It is a great canopy, and fun to fly in experienced hands, but it can be challenging to the novice. I'm hearing lately that it will no longer be produced, so I think it may depreciate whether you jump it or not. I would recommend you sell it and go for the Spectre, which is an excellent design for learning essential survival skills under canopy. If you want a 150 elliptical later, you'll be able to find another good deal.

And I never pull lower than 3,000, so I have time. *** Never say never. Time's rarely on our side in this sport.

Tandem #6 I cutaway from a step-thru. Did it more because I was pissed that somebody packed me that shit than out of necessity. But I'd also seen people land those before, and some of them didn't turn out so well. If I had it to do over, I'd do it a little differently. I think a set 400 with a step-thru might still land better than a master 425 reserve. Poor girl, I'll never forget. It was her 18th birthday, my first cutaway, and my first puker, all in one jump, and right in front of her parents. Good arch for the cutaway, tho. You know, the thing that impressed me most about a tandem cutaway was the amount of handles and cables I had in my hands when it was over. Like $300 worth of stuff.

I use them all the time after opening, and I'd use them to land if I had to, but they do take some strength. Once when I had about 190 lbs. of puking whuffo up front, I grabbed front & rears and twisted us about 90 degrees. It took every bit of strength I had, but somehow the streaming vomit inspired me to reach down and find it in myself. I've tried to use fronts to penetrate winds, as well. Stiffest riser pressure I've ever felt, and it didn't seem to help much with lighter cargo.

So what do you do when there's no wind? As we were blessed with good weather in the northeast last weekend, I was able to put my 2:1 x-braced canopy to the low speed test. I did braked approaches aimed at the peas on seven out of the nine jumps I made. I made it within 1 meter of center on four of them, made the edge of the pit on two, and landed about a meter outside on one. One landing came after a 90 degree turn at about 70 feet in 1/2 to 3/4 brakes. Winds varied from 10-15mph down to zero between jumps. I have to say that I am very impressed with the braked flight characteristics of my FX. I used the technique that I described, and it does, in fact, work quite well. The absolute longest it took me to shut down with no wind was about 10 meters. On the last few approaches, I would hold 3/4 brakes till about 50 feet, let up to 1/2 for a second or two, and then flare. I flared earlier, deeper, and more quickly than I normally would, and had no trouble standing any of the landings up. I'll admit that "stab" was a poor choice of words, but I did see the need to flare a bit more abruptly then I would at full flight. I tried to be quick, while remaining smooth. Is it risky? Yes, but no more so than a low flat turn. Does it require a lot of practice, as you state? Definitely, and it's why I said in my first post that it was best to learn how to do it on something bigger. I did just that on my old spectre 190. It was a phenominal canopy with which to explore low speed flight. My FX works the same way, everything just happens more quickly. Would I do it in turbulence? Probably not, but then if it's turbulent, it's probably pretty windy so I doubt I'd need brakes much to slow my approach, anyway. With all that said, I would have to admit that I could probably land in the manner that you suggest, too, if I felt the need. I could hold brakes and PLF when I hit, and I probably would if I really hosed myself while choosing outs and had to put it down on a 10 x 10 patch of dirt. Any more room, tho, and I will try to manage my energy such that I can get some kind of flare. With such an advanced airfoil overhead, piling in is rarely necessary, but it's only my opinion. To anyone else reading this I would say that Billvon has way more experience than me so do what he says.

Yikes! That's a very bad way to land a HP canopy, because you essentially take away all its airspeed and then let it dive. Only if you take it to the point of stall. And I said let up a little, not all the way to full flight. Like turning, don't do it too low. Don't bleed off all your airspeed so that you lose all lift, and with it the ability to flare. I agree, if you're after an efficient flare and swoop. I think this may become another of the many issues on DZ.com that revolves around semantics. By stab, I mean to say that if you're flaring a canopy that is not in full flight (i.e. braked flight), your flare will have to be deeper (and probably more abrupt) in order to sufficiently change angle of attack and arrest your descent. Is this incorrect? ***If you want to do a faster straight-in landing, adding a little front riser can accomplish that.*** That wasn't what I was after. I'm thinking of what techniques can help in landing a high WL canopy in a tight spot. If a braked approach will not work, than how else can it be done?

I wonder if you actually listen to Howard Stern at all. I am in san diego (one of the places he got shut off) and I listen to him almost every day.*** Sorry to hear. Ironically, WJFK, which carries Stern for the Wash DC market is still broadcasting his show. At least until the FCC decides to put pressure on Infinity, I guess. Apparently he's off the air in Orlando, which is where Wendy the Retard lives, and she called up the show in tears today. It's so sad. Just think, no more lesbians or Penthouse pets. No more Crackhead Bob or Beetlejuice. No more John the stutterer, or Mary the queefer. No more Wheel of Benji, Win Fred's money, or anal ring toss... Thanks, moral right, for protecting us from Howard Stern. I'm sure all of society's problems will begin to clear up, now...

Hmmm...methinks the .454 Casull is fairly recent. I don't believe it was around in the 60's when GB&U was lensed... It's certainly the most powerful handgun NOW... *** Not the new S&W .500 mag?

You can bring them in with somewhat of an accuracy-style, braked approach if you want. Let up a little (not all the way) at say, 50 ft, and a decent, well-timed stab will get you a good flare. The thing is, if you haven't learned this technique on some thing bigger first, your chance of success is probably not so good. Try this on your spectre (up high, first), and you will begin laying the foundation of skills that just might come in handy on something smaller one day. I think spectres are great canopies for learning this. Rock solid in deep brakes, but when you let up, they do like to dive. Be ready for the stab.

***By the way, that other King Air is simply not faster. *** I never jumped it, but I've seen it sitting on the tarmac at Titusville. It sure didn't look any faster.

Actually, in Virginia, you may soon be able to sue a DZ for simple negligence. Nightingale, you obviously have more than barstool knowledge of the law, and this may be of particular interest to you. Check this link out and read section C. http://www.uspa.org/news/current_news/BILL584.HTM The proposed bill was initiated by USPA in it's draft form, but it has changed somewhat as I understand it. It is out of USPA's hands, now, and has already passed the Va. house. It's now on it's way to the senate. If passed in it's current form, I think you'll agree, it sets a scary precedent, and could open a pandora's box by establishing a statutory cause of action for negligence.

Isn't tracking back from a long spot not the best way to cover ground? Shouldn't you just go ahead and dump? I doubt your glide ratio in a track equals or exceeds that of your canopy.

Have you tried a life of crime, yet? It worked for many jumpers in the seventies, as I understand it.

Actually, the North American F86 was the Sabre. The F100 was the Super Sabre, as in supersonic. It was the first production US fighter to have the capability. And here's your answer for a new name. BTW, ever heard of the sabre-dance?

This is from your reply in the other thread. Do you mean logbook endorsement by the home DZ S&TA? I think the intent of your letter is good, although I do share some of others' misgivings about further regulation. But I think it is necessary, something is necessary. I'm concerned now with the fact that some S&TA's, whatever their experience in other aspects of the sport, are not really qualified to accurately assess canopy piloting skills with regard to high performance landings. I've seen this a time or two. I think this point from Diverdriver in the other thread was well-made. Modern canopies are now really serious aircraft, and should be respected as such. And yet, a check ride is never possible when transitioning between types. You would never let a green pilot with 75 hours exp. take a King Air out for a spin just because they thought they were some prodigee of piloting abiliity. No reason you should allow a 75 jump wonder take a Velo out for a sunday jump at 2:1 WL just because they thought the same thing. And although the point can be made that any 75 jump wonder should be able to look at the incident reports, or listen to those in the know who discourage such decisions, and realise that they should not be attempting to fly such an advanced design, some still do. For years, people have implored dealers and private sellers to prevent it, but it hasn't worked. My only suggestion for an alternative would be that rather than make canopy courses and wingloading requirements part of license criteria directly, make them something of an award. Or an endorsement of some kind that is visible on your USPA card. That way, whatever your license, evidence of adequate ability would be available. This award could be attained by having met course requirements, or demonstrating proficiency to a suitable examiner (probably S&TA). And it could be a requirement for an advanced license, in much the same way that a falcon award or style set is a requirement for a C license. But it would not require attaining a higher license to have it. This way I could swoop my heart out without having to make night jumps to get that "D" so I can jump a cross-braced wing. Thoughts?

I demoed both the Vengeance 135 and the Velo 120, and I would agree with everything I've read so far with regard to recovery arc similarities. And as SkyMonkey1 stated, the Velo will go farther. I would even venture to say that when you shut down under the Velo 120 you will be going about the same speed as you would be under the Vengeance 135. The swoop will have just been longer. The x-braced airfoil is that good.

I have two questions about the regulations mentioned in the letter. Right now, an A-licensed jumper can build experience and jump numbers, and progressively down-size, and, barring any major safety breaches, no one will say they are operating outside the BSR's, correct? Under the new reg, if one wants to downsize beyond a certain WL, are they required to get the next higher license in order to do so without major hassle? Major hassle being the need to prove to every S&TA at a DZ other than home that they have the skill to safely operate the wing they are flying. 2) Would the WL requirements for licenses be the same for all, regardless of jumpers' exit weights? I ask this because the higher performance of heavier WL ratios does not seem to translate to the weight scale in a linear manner. A 1.25:1 loaded canopy does not seem to be as radical to a 250lb. jumper as it does to a 125 lb. jumper.