Basejumper.com - archive

Currently have a FLik 266 - .73 ish wing loading. I'd like to jump an object that's on a ridge line. The antenna is close enough to the hill side that I feel like if I had jusssst enough distance I could make it over the ridge and get an additional 2,000 feet of flight time.

What's some recommendations to get the best glide performance? The default is jump down wind, static line the object etc. Looking for any other suggestions.

Anybody have any beta on what the expected glide performance under standard conditions for a Flik is?

Shallow brakes to minimize sink on opening? Light pressure on rears after unstowing the brakes? Don't wear as much protective gear to minimize weight? Also, be careful on the downwind side of the ridge you'll just barely clear... might get some nasty rotors. I'd guess you should conservatively estimate no better than 3:1 after losing around 100' of altitude from the static line. If you're really feeling ballsy, I've seen some topskin assists open a lot faster and higher than static lines...

I'd recommending grabbing a flysight (or something similar) and do a few jumps in similar conditions with it on another object (or on a skydive). You can play around with how much rear riser input will give you the best glide, and you can find out exactly what you're glide ratio is. Then use Google Earth to map out your flight plan and calculate your margins/chance of clearing the ridge!

Great points - especially about the rotors - I'll definitely have to spend some time studying it - thanks!

Good point - I've been meaning to get a FlySight - this will be the perfect experiment for it. And I've got just the object to test it

I wouldn't do it, but you can also static line without a PC to remove the additional drag.

I wouldn't suggest shallow brakes -static line on Flik. But removing pc can be done safely.

Interesting, why do you say this? Shallow brakes are nice on low pcas and static lines, canopy flying forward sooner. Flik specifically you don't suggest it on?

Why not on a FLiK? What about other canopies?

Canopies will glide further on brakes when the wind is in your favour.

Getting as small as possible under canopy will also reduce drag and increase glide.

Similarly TARDS open higher than static lines too.

Flying into the lee side of a ridge sounds like a really bad idea.

I've been caught out speedflying in turbulence, and once in a heavy catabatic wind, and its no fun. Things go bad quickly. Rotors do hurt and can kill. I doubt a base canopy would be any better at all in such a situation, probably worse due to lack of speed and pressure.

Maybe you could do it in absolute nil wind, like at sunrise ( if that site ever has nil wind)

maybe walk around lower down the ridge a few times and see how the wind behaves.
Or ask a local paraglider who knows the site for advice.

My personal experience is poor inflation (flik is known for). Slow deployment speed- deeper opening angle dont seem to help its inflation.

was surprised by difference in back to back jumps. One Deep brakes and PC. Second shallow brakes and no PC.

Shallow brakes and no PC seem to add to poor inflation. Landed on 5 cells pretty much which is a real surprise on my 4 of 7 Flik.

[url

All good points. Unfortunately, there's no paragliding on this specific mountain, so can't tap into the PG knowledge

BFL #250

Optimal glide ratio is independent of weight. Protective gear is probably too small a fraction of your weight to impact performance anyway, unless you wear a flak vest and steel helmet... right? so don't leave your helmet and kneepads at home if you normally jump with them.

here and here are brief explanations

Theoretically, indirectly it could help you, if you have a tailwind. Lighter weight = slower flying airspeed = more time in the air being pushed by the wind = further distance covered.

The warnings about rotors on the lee side of a ridge should not be underestimated. Benefit from the tailwind prior to the ridge, will correlate with downdrafts, rotors, and turbulence upon passing into the lee. A mild (<5kt) tailwind might be worthwhile if your flight plan is on the borderline of do-able, but beyond that you are asking for trouble.

I think your flysight idea is on the right track. Do some performance modeling and you will answer your question.

and post video!

+1 for lee side rotors being a big concern

I have a friend in hospital at the moment with a broken back. His paraglider collapsed due to lee side rotors

+1
try to get as much info as possible, probably winddrifters or signals on the way down are an idea to check turbulences. check how the rotors increase/decrease with different windspeeds, so you are prepared once you are on exit...
is it steep on that side or more soft?
how about a TARD? No PC and you are fast under an open canopy ..

So using this drag/speed graph that plots induced drag and form can you reach this optimal drag i.e. where total drag is at a minimum on any canopy you fly by adjusting your toggle input? Or will the wing loading dictate whether you reach it or not? Is this the idea behind "ideal wing loading" that you see on some of the manufacturing websites?

What I take from this is that increasing your wing loading will not necessarily increase your glide. In fact, it could potentially decrease it as increasing wing loading increases speed, which in turn increases form drag. Is this correct?

Regardless of weight, two identical machines starting at the same altitude in the same environmental conditions will arrive on the ground at the same spot, having traveled exactly the same distance over the ground. The heavier machine, however, will arrive more quickly. It’s sort of counterintuitive, but there it is and we have the math to prove it

OK. makes sense now that I read it multiple times and digest it a bit more. So getting a smaller wing to increase "glide ratio" is an invalid reason to get a smaller wing.

Only part I am still processing is "provided that the correct airspeed is flown". How would this apply to a parachute? So I take the exact two parachutes with same toggle settings and all else equal and let them fly at full speed (slider up setup so arm length does not affect full flight); putting a heavier jumper on one of them. Basically, this is saying that both will get the same range but the heavier will get there faster. So, I guess the heavier jumper has more speed which increases the form drag but this compensated with a higher generated lift so that the end result is the same L/D ratio for both and therefore the same range. Am I understanding correct now?

Yeah that's ideal, but this is BASE not a laboratory. If he weighs more, he'll sink out more on opening, losing important initial altitude. And lightly loaded canopies do stay up longer and drift further in wind, so I think that lighter loading could definitely be an advantage. However, it is reasonable to say more speed and loading could be his friend on the lee side of this hill he wants to flirt with...

If anything, only getting a bigger wing to "improve glide" makes sense, not a smaller one, and even then it would only work because it can fly further with the wind in your favor, not because it would fly further on a windless day.

Correct, about the smaller wing.

Don't get too distracted by the discussion of "provided the correct airspeed is flown," because in the context of that article, it was talking about a traditional airplane wing/empennage configuration, where airspeed is determined by setting your pitch attitude, and you have a wide range of control. Beyond the fundamental concepts in that article, some of the finer points do not translate well to a typical ram air wing.

The canopy doesnt know drift due to the horizontal wind during flight. Lighter loading could mean that it takes longer to inflate, quicker to stall with brake input.
And quicker to stall in downwind deployment.
All in all, it is IMHO that the calcs are to close too the philosophical edge.
Direct Bag seem to be the best option in no wind conditions.
Maybe i am misreading some of the posts. But the best glide angle for an airplane is the same regardless of full load or light load.
Take care,
space.

Another thought experiment here. Two canopies have the same everything except for canopy A has heavier jumper than canopy B. Both going down wind. Do they get the same range? Canopy A spends less time flying but it also flies faster (which compensates for the shorted time) while canopy B spends more time in the air but flies slower than canopy A because of lighter wing load. Let's assume they start flying at the same height (i.e. ignore different openings characteristics do to different loading...etc). Totally agree a thought experiment is not the real world but it does give you a bit of an understanding of basic principles and is a bit entertaining.

Basically, what I am asking is do canopies, all else being equal, with different loading get the same range even when you take into account the wind?

Distance and glide are a function of speed relative to the ground. Canopies at different loadings will fly at different speeds and not glide the same in windy conditions.

Downwind:
- The more lightly loaded canopy descends more slowly, gets to run downwind longer, and will go farther than a more heavily loaded canopy that will descend more rapidly.

Headwind:
- The more lightly loaded canopy cannot penetrate winds near its trim speed and will descend more steeply relative to the ground (aka straight down or backwards if the wind is too strong). The more heavily loaded canopy has a higher trim speed and will still penetrate the wind, traveling farther than a lightly loaded canopy, but still not as far as either canopy could go in no wind.

Size and suspended weight also affect a canopy's opening speed and performance.

Don't fly into lee-side rotor.

The diff between gliding airplanes and canopies is parasitic drag. With an increased load, The plane would stay on the same glide angle relative to the air because the load goes inside the plane. with a canopy, the load is on the outside causing more parasitic drag.
Take care,
space