Forum Replies Created

  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Thursday, 2022/10/20 – High and Floaty #16876
    David Webb
    General Member

    Ditto. More fun on a weekday than should be allowed. Had a few moments of “weird,” and lots of aircraft looky-loos. Thanks, Jerome, for the great photo.

    Checking my logs, I had my personal best max altitude yesterday (8668′ MSL) and flew for just over 3 hours.

    Regarding the reserve deployment – it was lucky that the pilot happened to ask on launch what frequency we would be on. If he didn’t, I don’t think anyone would have known he was down. I don’t think anyone saw the deployment (he radioed it in after he landed), and even after flying directly over his position many times with him trying to describe his position, none of us could see him, his wing, or his reserve in the thick brush. Definitely pays to be on radio (even if there’s only one other person on the other end).

    in reply to: Artificial Grass PG Packing Area #16794
    David Webb
    General Member

    Yes – this isn’t an HG vs PG thing.

    What folks are suggesting is that no matter what you’re flying (PG, HG, hot air balloon, etc), if you’re not actively packing up, just park your flying contraption somewhere else so that pilots who want to pack up their gear on the turf have the room to do so.

    in reply to: Artificial Grass PG Packing Area #16790
    David Webb
    General Member

    Muchas grassias to Dan and Tim.

    in reply to: Pranking Crow #16749
    David Webb
    General Member

    Wind is good, send it!

    Hahahaha – human is in the bushes.

    in reply to: Is it smoke? Is it clouds? Why not both? #16702
    David Webb
    General Member

    After all the aircraft started showing up, I TFR’d myself down to the LZ.

    in reply to: Cost-Effective Surfacing of the LZ #16692
    David Webb
    General Member

    I’m not going to be the ringleader (learned my lesson), but if the club votes to go with the turf option, it’s great that you have a potential supplier to add to the consideration.

    in reply to: Cost-Effective Surfacing of the LZ #16690
    David Webb
    General Member

    Billie – no clue, and I’m no expert on artificial turf either. Just what I found after 1 random search and a few seconds of clicking. I’d defer to those with more knowledge on the subject, but with my napkin math, even if it has to be replaced every year, the club would still come out ahead on cost ($14k per year vs $14400 for our water cost). Also no idea what shipping costs are, so that would need some investigation.

    in reply to: Cost-Effective Surfacing of the LZ #16688
    David Webb
    General Member

    I’m sure there are many others, but did a few quick searches and saw this place:

    ReTURF

    The cheapest option is used turf with logos (partial logos from sports fields) at $.70 a square foot. Looks like a rough guesstimate of the SW quadrant of the LZ is around 20,000 square feet, so comes out to $14k. Compared to the water cost, that seems to pay for itself in under 8 months.

     

    in reply to: Cost-Effective Surfacing of the LZ #16683
    David Webb
    General Member

    Excellent proposal! Solves a lot of issues all at once for minimal effort / expense. Was good to point out that the club pays $1200 a month just for water (which is having minimal positive impact on the “grass”) – perhaps that is not well-known.

    Got my vote.

    in reply to: Saturday, Sept 17 2022 – Better than expected. #16661
    David Webb
    General Member

    Thanks for the photo! The day greatly exceeded the forecast.

    Track log of the afternoon.

    Nothing super interesting, but around 2:02 into the flight, we conducted a second “very scientific” glide and speed experiment (the first was a couple of weeks ago at sunset in very smooth air). This one had a few bumps, but gliding out from Crestline in the same air, this one hints at agreeing with the general thinking about pods improving glide, as it looks like when we are both at trim (beginning of the glide out), I might have had a small advantage. Glide on the first test when we were both in open harnesses was nearly identical.

    I’m on an ION 6 (low B) and Jérôme is on his new Maestro 2 (high B). Previous “test” and this one showed our trim speeds to be very close (almost identical, with the Maestro having a small advantage). Half bar, again, close with the Maestro having a small advantage. Full bar, I would have needed a jet pack to catch up. I think the Maestro 2 comes with a rear view mirror on the risers though.

    in reply to: Fire season – she’s baaaaaack #16611
    David Webb
    General Member

    Here’s a direct link to the area on the sectional, to watch for updates.

    Wow Jérôme – that’s a big one. Hope you and the flight park remain well-clear and that both fires are extinguished quickly. Looks like as of this morning, there’s a TFR for that area as well. Link to that area on the sectionals.

    in reply to: Best Low Drag Harness for 2022 #16522
    David Webb
    General Member

    Great comparison, Jérôme. Nice to have all of that data in one place to drool over thinking about potential future purchases. :)

    in reply to: PHI / Maestro 2 #16504
    David Webb
    General Member

    This wing and flight suit combo is guaranteed to enhance performance and is certified Tony Approved™ for all audiences.

    in reply to: Is CSS a current USHPA Chapter? #16500
    David Webb
    General Member

    Looks like we have a Flying Lizards fan :)

    in reply to: Artificial Grass PG Packing Area #16467
    David Webb
    General Member

    Second on the kudos – I’m a big fan and enjoyed my packing sessions yesterday (minus the zipper trouble).

    The picket fence idea couldn’t hurt – saw a bomb dropped on it yesterday while I was packing up. Since it’s solely used for packing away gear cleanly, the risk of code browns kind of defeats the purpose.