Basejumper.com - archive

me and a few buddies bought UL OPSs a few months ago purely for the intention of pushing our low FF limits and canopies just hit the states so we're about ready to see what we can do with them. the idea here is that the lighter fabric will extract faster due to the lighter weight fabric, open and expand to a wing shape faster due to the nature of the ul fabric not holding its shape and packing memory as firmly as standard F111, and more easily be pushed by air to its natural flying shape. im not saying any of this is fact by any means just is trying to give ourselves the best possible setup for low FF.

im hoping with this post that we can get some dialog going about using UL fabric for low free fall. so if anyone has any experience with UL rigs for this purpose, any "low-boys" who have thought about this who want to know how our mission goes, or any of you drunk fuckers who just want to speculate online instead of going to bed please post.

I'm a non-drunk fucker who is really interested in your "project". Please keep us up-to-date with your adventures.

With you be doing any low SL?

Frank.

yes, i am very interested in its effects on all deployment methods and plan on testing FF,SL, and DB. i will keep you posted on the findings. i am not sure how much benefit will come from the UL fabric as the biggest benefit we saw was in extraction time due to the lessened force needed to pull the canopy to line stretch by the pc which is rendered irrelevant by an anchor. but rest assured i will be testing all methods to see what benefits or demeanors i can find for UL fabric for each deployment method.

I agree here. You should notice a difference in extraction times due to the canopy being lighter.Probably going to be inconsequential though.

Not a chance on this one though.
I'm interested to know what free fall range you consider to be pushing your limits. I have free falled under 170 with my Troll 285 and I'm still here to talk shit. I think the most noticeable improvement you will get will come from just jumping the OSP more so than the light weight fabric.

http://vimeo.com/37657653
This is 164ft with a 305 osp. So wiht your lighty light supergear i except a lot from you guys! You have the black edition gopro right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI1cMh3PBgU

 

I'd say you'd have to make more jumps to make a definite conclusion. With 240 ft object (which IMO is definitely NOT ultra low) 2-3 second difference can be easily caused by e.g. different angle of incidence on both canopies, flying in half brakes, popping your toggles a bit later, delay, forward surge, etc etc.

I guess you'd have to jump SL few times on both and see the difference then (best would be leaving your toggles stowed after deployment)

Ill be interested to see how much of a difference it makes. My current records are 183 FF off a building with my ZP blackjack, and a PCA from 99 ft over snow with a standup landing on the same. Im honestly not sure how much lower id want to go. What size did you guys get? I think a smalled canopy might make a nice difference given the smaller area to inflate and shorter line sets.

I remember the one of the ultralight canopies tearing across crossports when static lined a couple of years ago, and some people having concerns about the UL fabric then. It might have been a flik?

I think that the OSP has slightly shorter lines than the Troll for faster pressurization (like the Fox and Fox XS). They will definitely be shorter than a BJ as those are fucking long.

+1. It was a flik. But that was way back and I haven't heard of it happening again. Could be wrong though.

The OSP basically has a line set one size smaller than the corresponding Troll (so the OSP 245 has the lines from a Troll 225, for example).

FWIW, the Mayhem is the same canopy as the Ace/Blackjack, except that the line length is shorter (like the OSP/Troll), so that the Mayhem 260 is an Ace 260 with the Ace 240 lines.


A few months back I ran into some PD guys jumping an experimental canopy at the bridge here, and we had an interesting discussion about line length and inflation. The upshot was that they thought we were all going way overboard on line length, and that you could get the same inflation benefits from a much less severe reduction in line length. I'm not sure I buy that 100% because I don't know how much slider down experience they are working from, but obviously PD engineers are going to know about a thousand times as much as more or less all of us about parachute design generally.

Really?

Really what?

Sorry, the UL tear.

Yes. There were photos posted on this forum. If you search around for them you can probably find them.

So, I just got the canopy in today and plan on hooking it up for its test jump tomorrow. I am not saying this is any magic canopy that is going to give anyone the keys to the low ff kingdom, just possibly the best tool for the job. I will keep everyone posted on my findings with the low jumps on it. (Btw my low ff to this point is not that impressive 187') I plan on taking it out to my favorite freestander and working my way down in 5' imcriments with higher amounts of repetition on the lower increments with the end goal being 150' if I deem it reasonable. I also plan on using it for some low SL and db deployments to see if I can see any discernible differences to report. If enough people are interested I am happy to post a private channel of footage of my "testing"

I love da BASEment and would enjoy
seeing/reviewing your experimentation.

I would love to see the footage as well

I'm very interested, thank you.