headoverheels 334 #26 April 28, 2004 QuoteWhere was it said that a Cobalt had to be loaded at 1.2 to be considered safe? I've been here long enough to read pretty much every one of Dan's posts, I don't recall him ever saying that. Here ya go: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=166659;search_string=minimum%20loading%201.2%20cobalt;#166659 and http://www.extremefly.com/aerodynamics/FAQ.html#one Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #27 April 28, 2004 Respectfully, nowhere in that post does Dan, or Atair, say that the Cobalt is unsafe below a loading of 1.2. I don't agree with Atair's somewhat aggressive marketing toward low-timers, but it's not fair to accuse him of saying something that he didn't. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #28 April 28, 2004 well he does say: Quoteat 1.1 loading the canopy is below our recommended minimum (1.2) Stating 1.2:1 as a "recommended minimum" could easily be taken to mean it is unsafe below that - afterall its the same wording other manufacturers use with regards to a recomended maximum wing loading and there most would proabably agree that exceeding the maximum recommended loading is unsafe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brains 2 #29 April 28, 2004 Quotewell he does say: Quoteat 1.1 loading the canopy is below our recommended minimum (1.2) Stating 1.2:1 as a "recommended minimum" could easily be taken to mean it is unsafe below that - afterall its the same wording other manufacturers use with regards to a recomended maximum wing loading and there most would proabably agree that exceeding the maximum recommended loading is unsafe. If you are going to quote a post, include the entire sentence, not just what you want to put emphasis on. Quote.... at 1.1 loading the canopy is below our recommended minimum (1.2) and is simply a boat. and in no way possible to be twitchy. That is the whole thing. Do i fly a cobalt, yes Do i think they are for beginners, NO Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #30 April 28, 2004 Does the fact that he describes it as a "boat" at that loading negate his statement that the recommended minimum loading is 1.2? I was not seeking to put emphasis on any part of his comments, I merely quoted the salient part of his statement in the interests of brevity. I do not belive his subsequent comment has any impact on whether or not a statment to the effect that 1.2 is a "recommended minium" was ever made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raymod2 1 #31 April 28, 2004 Quotewell he does say: Quoteat 1.1 loading the canopy is below our recommended minimum (1.2) Stating 1.2:1 as a "recommended minimum" could easily be taken to mean it is unsafe below that It seems to me that is an unfair assumption. Let's say I design a sports car engine that redlines at 15,000 RPM and has peak horsepower at 13,500 RPM. A lot of my design effort went into fast closing valves and lighter engine parts that allow such a high RPM. When I sell the car I might recommend that you don't let the RPMs drop below 10,000 because the power drops off considerably below that. Does that mean that you can't safely drive it around town at 4,000 RPM? No, it just means you won't reap the benefits of many of my design efforts if you drive it that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #32 April 28, 2004 Quote It seems to me that is an unfair assumption Absolutly true, I completely accept that interpretation and I'm sure many would come to a similar conclusion... but I also think some people would come to the conclusion that when a manufacturer says something is not recommended - it may well be for a safty reason. The consumer doesn't know if the canopy is (for example) prone to collapse at low wing loadings - they can only rely on the manufactuers recomendations and they ignore them at their own peril. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #33 April 28, 2004 QuoteThe consumer doesn't know if the canopy is (for example) prone to collapse at low wing loadings - they can only rely on the manufactuers recomendations and they ignore them at their own peril. Or, they could do what they SHOULD be doing in the first place. ASK. Ask your dealer. Ask your friends. Ask the manufacturer. Ask someone. I think it's just silly for someone to buy a canopy going on nothing more than a pretty ad in Parachutist or the marketing drivel on a manufacturers web page. Don't you? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #34 April 28, 2004 QuoteOr, they could do what they SHOULD be doing in the first place. ASK. Ask your dealer. Ask your friends. Ask the manufacturer. Ask someone. I think it's just silly for someone to buy a canopy going on nothing more than a pretty ad in Parachutist or the marketing drivel on a manufacturers web page. Don't you? Yes. Thank you. Quoteshenanigans OTT, I love that word. QuoteStacy hook turned into a cow Why?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #35 April 29, 2004 QuoteOr, they could do what they SHOULD be doing in the first place. QuoteAsk the manufacturer. My gf found this out after her expierience. She requested a demo cobalt 170 2 years ago. She was jumping a sabre 170 loaded just under 1:1 and had around 100 jumps. Atair sent her the 170. She had a nasty looking collapse just before her flare on a no wind day. She called Dan and he said it happened because she was underloading it. He said she should be on the 135. He said it flies bigger and was perfectly safe. She hung up not long after. She jumped a sabre 150 for a while and has been jumping a safire2 139 for the last 400 or so jumps. She still has no desire to downsize yet after 500 jumps since Atair said she would be fine on the 135 at 100 jumps. Yeah, that was the manufacturer. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #36 April 29, 2004 got to love double hearsay.... ----- anyway, I have no data on a cobalt jumped with a wingloading lighter than .72 . The canopy is definitely not prone to collapse at this wingloading although end cell closure will commonly happen. i can see the point of 'recommended minimum' having a nebulous meaning and i can have that changed. our web site and literature are in the process of being updated. sincerely, daniel preston atair <><> www.atairaerospace.comDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #37 April 29, 2004 Quotegot to love double hearsay.... Ill have her post the same thing if it makes you feel better. You know what you said and that is what the problem was. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
