lazyfrog 0 #1 September 29, 2003 do you have a waterproof AAD ???---------- Fumer tue, péter pue ------------- ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ivanrockon 0 #2 September 29, 2003 Just ordered. Will be at home sometime this week. Ivan "Rock On" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ber 0 #3 September 29, 2003 I have mine for 1month, works fine. Very quick self.test, no worries about batteries, etc etc only good things about it, cypres1 over and out :)Ber --------------------------------- "Who Needs Oxygen Anyway?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #4 September 29, 2003 There is a "waterproofing" kit available for the original Cypres. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #5 September 29, 2003 are you implying anything with your quotes around the word waterproofing? Is the waterproofing kit ineffective or does it do the job, in your experience? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilivan 0 #6 October 1, 2003 I believe that the water proofing was added to allow the use of CYPRES for pond swoopers. In recent article (Skydiving, I think...?) they did some tests to see if you could trigger a CYPRES swooping a highly loaded canopy, and they managed. Wonder how they will solve that one.....?"If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." David Brent Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skypilot 0 #7 October 2, 2003 Had anyone tried the Vigil yet?Same as a cypres , belgium made , cheaper! Water resistant as well!Check it out at www.vigil.aeroGo big! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #8 October 2, 2003 what WL though? For the average someone well below 2.0 I dont know if its possible. What do you think? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilivan 0 #9 October 2, 2003 Can't remember the WL details, but it was certainly above 2.0 - he tried it with 3 WL'ings and I think it was only when he got well above 2.0 that the CYPRES fired. As you say, for the average skydiver this probably won't be an issue. My point was that Airtec have added the water resistant feature to allow the use of a CYPRES when pond swooping - which is when it is very likely the pilot is loading it well above 2.0.... (I think the tests were done with the original CYPRES and I don't know if the CYPRES 2 has had any modifications with regards to descent rate etc)"If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." David Brent Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #10 October 2, 2003 I know they fired a cypress under canopy (up high) but last I heard it deactivated itself at 130 feet above it's ground level. That leaves the canopy pilot about 700 feet (Assuming a 270 is started in the 830 foot range - which is high for sea level on my velocity 90 at 2.3 so it should be plenty for about sea level folk or damn close to it) to build up and SUSTAIN enough speed to fire the cypress in a normal performance landing. I think a better test would have been to see if the jumper could build up enough speed to fire the cypress in 700 feet. Anyone know if this was how the test was done? If not, I can't really see the test being valuable if the jumper was spiraling through 2000 (say from 4000 to 2000) feet of altitude to fire the cypress. That's not really a realistc way of doing a performance landing...right? That would put the pilot at a high rate of velocity when entering the cypress firing range, instead of building up speed just on the outskirts of that range like a "normal" performance landing would do. I don't know all the details of the test, so if I'm way off base here please set me straight. Blue skies IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilivan 0 #11 October 2, 2003 QuoteI think a better test would have been to see if the jumper could build up enough speed to fire the cypress in 700 feet. Anyone know if this was how the test was done? I don't remember how long he held the dive/turn before it fired, but I will look it up tonight and post. Although IIRC his conclusion was that it would be possible to cause a CYPRES fire during a high speed approach."If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." David Brent Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #12 October 2, 2003 i figure I will want to start utilizing water to intitiate my swoop once I have a WL of 1.7-1.8, thats plenty high enough to be able to start it over water. Mainly I just wanted to know who has used it for pond swooping and how has it reacted? (i.e. has it held up?). I'm a LONG way away from WLs that would fire a cypres, but not THAT far away from a WL where I will want to utilize water to swoop. (relatively speaking). --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #13 October 2, 2003 awesome. I look forward to hearing more about the tests. Thanks for looking it up. Blue skies IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilivan 0 #14 October 2, 2003 OK, here is what he - Troy Ketsdever - did (from Skydiving vol 23, #2, issue 266): VX99 - WL 2.3 VX86 - WL 2.6 (detachable D-bag) VX74 - WL 3.1 Set the CYPRES for +1500 ft field elevation. At 4k initiated a 180 toggle turn and held the turn with harness input only to 1.5k. The VX86 fired the CYPRES (he jumped the VX74 without the CYPRES to get a descent rate comparison). Approximate descent rates (based on video) - there were several results given, this is the one I think the most pertinent: VX99 between 2.5k and 2k = 48mph VX86 between 2.5k and 2k = 79mph VX74 between 2.5k and 2k = 75mph His conclusion: "...we can conclude that any high-performance landing approach that builds enough downward speed prior to 130ft AGL could result in a CYPRES fire. I think that my test demonstrates that this is not outside the realm of possibility. If you are jumping a highly loaded canopy and are using a CYPRES (or similar "expert model" AAD), consider carefully your landing approaches." Hmmm... may email Airtec on this one."If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." David Brent Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #15 October 2, 2003 hmm...I'd be interested to know WHEN the cypress fired between the 4k and 1.5k markers. I'd venture a bet it was after a lot more than 1000 feet. Just a hunch though. Yeah I think getting more info from Airtec would definately be a good idea. Thanks for posting the article details. Blue skies IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #16 October 3, 2003 Had anyone tried the Vigil yet?Same as a cypres _________________________________________________________ That is a bold statment. Considering how long the Cypress has been around. Sometimes it is not good to be the first one on the block with a new toy. It may be cheaper but where did you get that they are waterproof? We just sent one back to them that they sent us to inspect. It was not waterproof. there literature says they will be making one but unless they are saying different, the one that they are shipping around to show dealers is not waterproof.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #17 October 3, 2003 It's all in last months Skydiving.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #18 October 3, 2003 not the details we're looking for - most particularly at what point from 4k to 1.5k did the cypress fire? If on the lower end (as I suspect - well actually I guess that stands to reason) that's hardly a reasonable or realistic test for a cypress firing during a high performance landing. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of now. Most HP pilots aren't in the habit of spiraling from 2.5k till ground level (which is what this test actually simulated) so while it's good to know a cypress can fire under these wingloadings, it's not what I would consider a realistic test. A more realistic one would have been to fire it sometime in a 1000 feet. At least that's where I'm coming from for now Blue skies Ian ps: I don't subscribe to skydiving Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilivan 0 #19 October 4, 2003 I think we can conclude that the CYPRES fired between 2250ft and 1500ft; the question is, at what point within the 750ft? If at the top end, then there is a good chance that a swoop initiation would not build the required speed... We need a test that starts a conventional swoop approach at the relevant altitude within the parameters of the test. The CYPRES log will tell us the rest."If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation." David Brent Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #20 October 5, 2003 Quotehmm...I'd be interested to know WHEN the cypress fired between the 4k and 1.5k markers. I'd venture a bet it was after a lot more than 1000 feet. Just a hunch though I would say that is a pretty safe bet . With field elevation set at 1500' I would hope it would not fire much above 2250' Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
