Sabre2 and Spectre

[Sabre2th 0]

Hi all

I fly a spectre currently and just wanted to know why PD states that the spectre has the same if not flatter glide than the Sabre2.... is this true??? I have flown a sabre2 and thought it had a MUCH flatter glide.
Just wondering.
Nick

Nick.

Those who dance, are cosidered insane by those who can't hear the music.

[indyz 1]

In the past I've heard that the Spectre outglides original Sabre. I've seen it first hand on CRW jumps with a Sabre 150 and a Spectre 150 at similar wingloadings. I flew the Spectre and with the other canopy ahead of me I would gain horizontally while staying even or slightly gaining vertically, which seems to indicate that the Spectre had better glide. A little bit of rear riser and I could very easily close up from low and behind to get the dock.

I hadn't heard the Sabre2 thing until another thread today. It seems possible that somebody confused the two.

[pilotdave 0]

The quote from PD I assume you're referring to:

"Many jumpers do not expect a seven-cell canopy to glide as far as a comparable nine-cell, but at full glide the Spectre actually has a slightly flatter glide angle than some nine-cell canopies, including both the original Sabre and the Sabre2."

From the Spectre flight characteristics PDF file: http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Spectre-Flight-Char.pdf

Dave

[Sabre2th 0]

Yes, that is what I was referring to


EDIT: I can't spell when I am drunk

Nick.

Those who dance, are cosidered insane by those who can't hear the music.

[BigM 2]

I put 400 jumps on a Spectre. I've got over 200 on a Sabre2. When I flew the Spectre, the ONLY, and I repeat ONLY thing that I wasn't jump up and down overjoyed about was the lack of penetration from a distant spot. I now can get back from spots that I wouldn't have dreamt of even trying with the Spectre. I will never buy off on the statement of it out-gliding the Sabre2.

Blue 111-
Jeff

"When I die, I want to go like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car."

[Breezejunky 0]

I've done over 1000 jumps on a Spectre. I switched to a Sabre 2 and found it MUCH flatter and way more fun to land. I've had leg and knee injuries so I find the steep glide on a Spectre in turbulence is an issue with me (unless I'm being very aggressive which I rarely am)
Out of those two, if the S2 is trimmed properly, I like it much better.

[skyyhi 0]

I don't have many jumps on any of these canopies, but I can say without a doubt that the Spectre has a flatter glide than MY original Sabre (note I said mine). I found that the demo Sabre2 I tried had a much flatter glide than both of these canopies and my Hornet is even flatter still. . .

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[fundgh 0]

Just Speculating-

Are penetration and Glide angle possibly different parameters? In a perfect, no wind day, the true glide angle could be flatter on the Spectre, while flying into even the slightest head wind could give it less penetration? Is this possible?

...FUN FOR ALL!

[billvon 3,110]

>Are penetration and Glide angle possibly different parameters?

Yes. They are only similar in zero wind.

[damion75 0]

Quote

>Are penetration and Glide angle possibly different parameters?

Yes. They are only similar in zero wind.

Is this because the height (I forget the technical term) of the cells at the front is much larger and presents a bigger surface area to the oncoming wind?

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[pilotdave 0]

No, the difference between glide ratio and penetration is basically that glide ratio is in relation to the airmass and penetration is in relation to the ground. In other words, a canopy could have a glide ratio of 5:1 (5 feet forward for every foot it descends) but still be going backwards. In other words, it's penetrating 5 feet through the air for every foot it drops, but the wind is pushing it backwards over the ground. Penetration has more to do with airspeed... how much distance over the ground the canopy will cover when flying into the wind.

In extreme cases, a canopy could have a lot of penetration but a poor glide ratio, or vice versa. The space shuttle is probably a good example of that case. Falls out of the sky like a rock, but has tons of airspeed to cover a huge distance. A sailplane could have a 40:1 glide ratio but at such a low speed it can't cover much ground.

But somewhere in the middle, a regular canopy that has a good glide ratio is going to go farther in no wind than a canopy with a poor glide ratio. So in no wind, glide ratio is pretty much the same as penetration.

I remember when I was jumping a lightly loaded F-111 canopy and a friend of mine had a smaller ZP canopy right next to me. We had a long spot and were trying to make it back. His canopy had better penetration than mine... so he passed me. But I had a better glide ratio, so I was able to clear a treeline and land on the DZ. He had to make an off landing.

Now if we were on the other side of the airport trying to fly into the wind to get back, he'd have a better shot of making it than I would have.


Dave

[billvon 3,110]

>Is this because the height (I forget the technical term) of the cells at the
> front is much larger and presents a bigger surface area to the oncoming
>wind?

No, it's purely math. A canopy with a great glide ratio (say, 5 to 1) will have a zero glide ratio with respect to the ground if it's flying at 10 knots into a 10 knot wind. If it's flying downwind, it will have a 10 to 1 glide ratio over the ground. In both cases the canopy is flying exactly the same speed with respect to the wind, it's just that the wind is moving too.