SkySlut 0 #1 February 2, 2003 Any idea what the largest x-braced main you can put in an RS? I hate it how manufacturers cant stick with one sizing scheme. I went to their website and they have already changed over to the RSK sizing... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #2 February 2, 2003 a 95 onyx fits beautifully in my rs. note: the x-brace onyx is 1/3 lower pack volume than a tricell x-brace. sincerely, dan<><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkySlut 0 #3 February 2, 2003 Yeah, It took me a while to find it in previous posting but. I was just wondering...sizing charts are hard to keep track of these days. The RSK series is tiny...I going to be putting an 84 in there...I was just debating on a 106 or 113, either one will fit...but I am putting a Cypres in there as well. Doing a little fact finding to make my riggers life a little easier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #4 February 2, 2003 Send Aggie at Sunpath an email with the main and reserve canopy sizes and he will let you know which size to go with. aggie@sunpath.com --Sam--Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #5 February 3, 2003 Quotea 95 onyx fits beautifully in my rs. note: the x-brace onyx is 1/3 lower pack volume than a tricell x-brace. Unless the Onyx has been released, and I'm SURE I would have read about it's release, then what size Onyx will fit into an RS doesn't help him. He isn't putting one in his RS if he can't buy one yet. I have put an FX-79 in my old XRS, it was tight, the FX-70 was a better fit. I believe the volumes for the XRS and the RS are the same, just different dimensions. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #6 February 3, 2003 no need to be snipity, i'm making them as fast as i can. demo fleet is in que for production in about 2 weeks. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
floormonkey 0 #7 February 3, 2003 I regularly pack a Velocity 90 into a RS with a RS+1 bag, and I am believe the Velocity 103 he also owns is also in an RS (though I could be wrong). note: Edited for pisspoor grammer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apoil 0 #8 February 3, 2003 Quoteno need to be snipity, i'm making them as fast as i can. demo fleet is in que for production in about 2 weeks. Snippiness was actually merited, because under the guise of being helpful, you merely took an opportunity to do more marketing. Not that theres anything wrong with that at all.. Gotta promote your product line, even if it is yet to hit the market, but yes, a response pointing out that it was only of minimal help was merited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #9 February 3, 2003 So Dan is there anything that you canopies can't do? According to your Ad's (er I mean posts) They are better than everything in every way.. I bet they pack themselves too right? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #10 February 3, 2003 ron: "1/3 lower pack volume than tricell cross braced canopies" that is a simple provable statement of fact. sincerely, dan<><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #11 February 4, 2003 Quote "1/3 lower pack volume than tricell cross braced canopies" that is a simple provable statement of fact. 1/3 less pack volume at the same size measured by the same measuring scheme? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure non-xbraced to xbraced is about a 1/3 difference in volume, how is it that yours, WITH bracing, save so much space? are you saying that your xbraces take up no space? is it a much thinner airfoil? thinner fabric? less reinforcement? inquiring minds MUST know. -jerm Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #12 February 4, 2003 tri cell cross braced canopies use 2 vertical non loaded ribs between loaded ribs. the onyx crossbraced quad cell uses only 1. look at the posted pictures under 36 cell and it will make sense. sincerely dan<><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #13 February 4, 2003 Quotetri cell cross braced canopies use 2 vertical non loaded ribs between loaded ribs. the onyx crossbraced quad cell uses only 1. That would mean removing 9 of 28 ribs, leaving the top and bottom skin intact of a x-braced tri-cell would lower the pack volume by 1/3. The math doesn't add up, the 9 ribs are not 1/3 of the fabric, even accounting for the seams. Icarus says that the VX packs about 25% larger than a conventional 9 cell. That means that the extra ribs and x-bracing account for the 25%. If removing the 9 ribs reduced the pack volume by 33%, then it would pack 8% smaller than a conventional 9 cell, even with the cross bracing still installed. A cross braced canopy packing smaller than a non-crossbraced canopy.............. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #14 February 4, 2003 the d cross braces are omited, the length of the crossbraces are shorter and and i beam seams are slightly less volume than rolled seams. overall the 95 onyx was 1/3 lower pack volume as compared to a 99 vx. sincerely, dan<><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
