Basejumper.com - archive

http://www.dropzone.com/...erformance_1155.html

Interesting article. Obviously it applies to us in different ways with larger parachutes.

Brian talks about the limitations of keeping rib size the same as parachutes get smaller and bigger. Particularly with large wings, they become less efficient. If your only priority is landing safely (and not making a distant landing area) is this decrease in efficiency relevant for us? Are you just going to end up hitting the stall point as parachutes get super massive?

This Brian guy is confusing "High wingloading" with "High performance". Major diff. write off his skyjump advices.
take care,
space

Saying "this Brian guy" is like saying "this Isaac guy" when talking about Isaac Newton (a little drastic, I know ). I would take (and have since I met him in '97) Brian Germain's advice over anyone on this board. A little confused why you would say write off his advice. Interested to learn why what he wrote is irrelevant. I read the article twice to try to find the link to what you are saying and I don't think he is confusing the two at all.

I also disagree that he confuses "high wingloading" with "high performance". It's worth noting that the name "Brian Buckland" is at the top of the article, and maybe he confused the two. Regardless, I don't think it's prudent to accept someone's opinion based solely on their status, no matter how smart they are.

Another question I have after skimming over the article again: does a BlackJack/Ace have a particularly long recovery arc? The article talks about longer lines leading to a longer recovery arc, and I seem to remember the lines on a BlackJack/Ace being relatively long.

Couldn't agree with you more...but I was comparing Brian & Newton in regards to their individual areas of expertise - Brian's being that in the areas of parachute design, flight, testing, & manufacturing. I think his experience combined with his intelligence more than lends to his credibility.

I made around 50 +/- jumps between the BJ, all sub 300' back in 2006 (borrowed gear). I was wing loading them at .88 so they were a little faster coming out of the turn in to land, but I don't remember noticing a huge difference in the recovery arc versus my FLiK at that time. I can definitely say that the recovery arc due to shortened lines on the Fox XS is significantly shorter.

PS. Brian Buckland who took the photo is a bad ass free flyer, instructor, world renown camera guy, and beyond intelligent as well. Even though I have 4,000+ skydives and almost 800 BASE Jumps, If he posted the article and gave me advice, I would still listen to him. I listen to everyone. It makes it easier to weed out who is really full of shit.

Good article, more applicable to SKY.
I say that based on the range of winds
that each sport is willing to jump in.

I have personally solo jumped canopies
ranging from 117 to 420 square feet.

My experience is: very under-loaded
canopies can open extremely slowly.

The erratic openings will be a concern long before you care about the loss of flight performance.

Define "particularly long". Longer, sure. But it is still a big fat 7 cell canopy.

Longer lines allow more energy to be built up and a wider flight envelope but it's not like long lines on their own will give you a long recovery arc.

DK, the fact that Brian continues to design, build, and advocate the use of airlocks to increase safety and collapse resistance in turbulence when there are mountains of evidence (and some dead bodies) showing their futility and serious danger is good reason to question his advice.

Only in regards to downsizing. Everything else about parachutes is good information.