hookit

I'd be really curious to know the difference as well. I jump a standard Kenko .45 lens. If you do opt for the hi-res lens (or you speak to someone offline with experience with it) would you please post the results? Thanks, Trey

There's a guy who jumps at Spaceland who purchased his own tandem rig because he can only do tandems. Last I heard he had around 50 or 60 tandems I believe and that was about 6 months ago.

Hey there, Dave! It was great seeing you out at the dz again! Thanks for posting the pics. Very good point. Blues, Trey

Wow. Thanks for the feedback. I'll probably keep it simple at this point and go for the 2.8. Now I have another question. Canon makes a 28:2.8 (I believe that's the correct notation) lens which sells for $170 and Contax makes a 28:2.8 Carl Zeiss Biogon T lens which sells for $500. Do you think I, as an amateur photographer, would even notice the difference in picture quality between the two lenses? If so do you think it would even come close to justifying triple the price of the lens? Thanks again, Trey

I've freeflown (past tense of freefly?) in both open and closed face helmets. The difference in drag is negligible and I would think the drag is probably greater on the open face. The primary difference is going to be on the peripheral vision which is often obscured by a full face helmet. Freeflying tends to be much more three dimensional than RW and it's nice to have the largest field of vision possible. It basically comes down to preference. Some people like the added protection of a full face as well as the more peaceful feel of it since you don't have the wind in your face. Others (myself included) prefer the extra peripheral vision as well as the feel of the wind in our face. Another reason I like open face helmets is that it allows others to see my facial expressions. Plus it's definitely more fun to geek a camera when you're wearing an open face helmet!!!! Blues, Trey

I recently bought a Canon Rebel 2000 camera and I'm looking to get a lens. I plan on using it to take pics of tandems as well as random other jumps as they come up. I've spoken with the camera flyers at the dz and the lens of choice seems to be a 28mm. I've looked around a bit and there seems to be quite a price range as far as 28mm lenses go. My question is whether or not it's worth it to shell out the extra bucks (quite a few extra I might add) for a lens with a larger aperture (1.8 rather than 2.8). The camera guys I spoke with didn't have any experience with different lens types so I'll pose my questions here. Will the lens with the larger aperture provide a crisper image since it allows more light to enter? Will I be more likely to be able to get good quality blow-ups of pics taken with a lens with 1.8 aperture instead of the 2.8 aperture? Is it true that the lens with the larger aperture will have a smaller depth-of-field which is in focus? If so would I be better off with the 2.8 because it would be a bit more 'forgiving' on the range (especially with things like RW big-ways)? I know that's quite a few questions so thanks in advance for any advice. Blues, Trey

This must be the BEST thread ever!!!

That's a good idea. I haven't seen anyone with a laser mounted to their d-box. Mine and everyone else's I've seen have been mounted to the helmet..

Well, I jump at Skydive Spaceland in Rosharon, Texas, and IMO it's a great dz. However, Yahoo Maps is telling me that it's a 6.5 hour drive from Corpus to Rosharon. Yahoo claims it's only a 3.5 hour drive from Corpus to San Marcos (that's still not exactly what I would call a short drive!). I haven't jumped at San Marcos (yet) but I've heard nothing but good things about the dz. I believe they're the two dz's closest to Corpus which fly turbine aircraft. Good luck finding a new home dz! -Trey

Wow, I left just before all the excitement. Glad you're ok! Was that your FIRST save? Beer!!!!! -Trey

Nice pic!

Welcome to the family! Blues, Trey

Great! That's really what I needed. Another way to spend money on skydiving.

Don't worry, Ted, you didn't miss much actually. She had bleach blond hair, dark baked tan and huge fake tits that truly did hang half way down to her stomach. She was, by far, not the best looking chick at the dz! The funniest part of it all in my opinion was that she called ahead and reserved a tandem for a 'celebrity'...no name provided. Then when they got there no one knew who she was (at least not that they'd admit! ). Why bother booking as a 'celebrity' when most people don't recognize you anyway? Because it boosts the ego! Most true celebrities actually would rather not be recognized.

This is very true and is exactly why we should always leave ourselves an out. I always try and set up such that at least the last 90 degrees of my carving turn are free of obstacles. That way, if I find myself too low to complete the turn, I can get off the riser early without having to worry about hitting a hangar or a tree. Fortunately for me I jump at a dz with a very large, open landing area and this is relatively easy to accomplish regardless of what the winds are doing. -Trey

Hey, everyone, look! I've been promoted!

Hmmm...something about great minds....

Doubtless. However, IMO, we don't learn tons about LANDING our canopies up high because we don't have a stationary point of reference like the ground. I agree wholeheartedly that we can learn some invaluable information about the characteristics of our canopy by trying different inputs up high and getting a feel for how it reacts to each but, IMO, the best way to learn to land a canopy better is to practice the landings themselves. I agree that 2.1 is an aggressive wing-loading for someone with 500 jumps however this person could have been a very quick learner as well as extremely current. Interestingly the incident report (regarding the incident in VA in March) does not state whether or not he was flying downwind of any obstacles that could have generated turbulence. I feel it's a difficult thing to make a case against the canopy design of the Xaos based on the limited info available on this incident. Blues, Trey

Hmmm....I was thinking something more along the lines of "Nice Tits!"

I always thought the most appealing and interesting aspect of joining the Mile High Club was risking getting caught doing the nasty by an overly observant passenger or flight attendant. It seems to me that it's not nearly so novel a concept if you're guaranteed privacy the entire time. Why not just do it at home and save the $800?

Hey there, Ted. Good question. Since none of 'authorities' have posted yet I'll go ahead and post some ramblings on the subject. I don't believe you can get the same forward speed out of a slow gradual carve as you would from either a steep carve or a full-on dive. I believe that usually the greatest forward speed can be attained by a long sustained steep carve rather than a snap turn which creates a straight-in dive though. Unfortunately I haven't seen any of the pro swoop meets so I'm not sure what the setup of choice is although I've heard more have gone to carving rather than a snappy hook. -Trey

You know it! If it weren't for how fun it is to fly a canopy I probably would not have stayed in the sport very long at all. Flying the canopy is what I daydream about all week at work!

If you'll be on the Northwest side of Houston you'll be a lot closer to Skydive Houston than you will be to Skydive Spaceland (Spaceland is down south). Both dz's are great and both fly during the week. I don't know which plane Skydive Houston tends to fly during the week (cessna or Otter) however Spaceland usually flies at least two or three Otter loads on any given week day.

That's hilarious! Thanks for posting it.

Congratulations! I have only 8 more to go!