Deimian

What's your height and weight? I have laying here a Rainbow suit (german manufacturer), with booties, with missing inner leg grips (you'd have to fix them), ugly as fuck. But free if you want it (postage is on you though). It was made for somebody around 178cm and 75 kg.

Stop bragging and start jumping .

I guess that's were I saw the magnetic riser covers on the Curv. I totally forgot about it, and TBH the rigging innovations website did not clarify a lot.

You are totally right. For some reason I was convinced that magnetic riser covers were the default in the Curv. They are not, and they are actually not available. I've looked at the website, and I've looked at the videos from DSE in the PIA symposium in 2013. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UlUD6dddg , around minute 4, you get the explanation.

I'm not an instructor but you can double check these tips with one: -Look at where you are going (that point that is moving directly towards you, not moving up or down in your field of view), not at what is under you. That can help you to time the flare better. -Get somebody to film your landings and debrief them. The way you react -and the altitude- is better analyzed and corrected from an outside point of view. That way you can correlate your experience and POV with what is really happening. -Practice your flare up high. I guess you did it already. But different canopies have different flare characteristics. If you are constantly using different gear, remember to check that in every jump to get familiar with how that particular canopy feels. -Flare all the way down. I can't remark enough how important this is. I've seen people with hundreds of jumps that are not flaring all the way down, and are landing hard regularly, sometimes busting their ankles (nothing too serious though). You can get away with it, but you are missing the opportunity to make the landings softer (and funnier by the way). -Do not put your arms up right before touch down. That is the difference between a nice and soft landing, and a small tumbling. Keep them down, and symmetrical. The skydive is not over until both feet are on the ground and you are not moving forward anymore, so don't relax your arms before that point. -Keep your arms symmetrical on flare. If you feel like the ground is coming at you from the right, pull a bit more on the left. If you feel like the ground is coming at you from the left, pull a bit more on the right. On landing, many people tend to reach with their arms to try to protect themselves against the ground. What you are doing in that case is pulling the toggle, which is producing a harder turn, and making the situation worse. Arms on flare should be always symmetrical. -The sliding part is weird. At your experience level you shouldn't have a lot of forward speed, so the sliding should be minimal. What's your weight and which canopies were you using? Maybe you should ask for something larger (even though I assume that they are giving you the largest canopies they have). Don't sweat it. Once the landings "click" you'll nail them.

Magnetic riser covers are included in the base price.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread. I have a question for the experienced riggers out there. Is the pilot chute launch in that video something that you can expect in all the manufacturers with fully enclosed RPC? That little hesitation didn't look normal to me, but I'm not a rigger. I guess it is not, since Sandy jokingly mentioned at the end "don't show the pilot chute launch", but it is better to ask. BTW: Is there any info regarding the MARD that RI was developing?

That's how it is done in all the 208B I've seen. With snap shackles

There you go, I fixed it for you

You are totally right, I mixed up the names. I meant Nitro, not Nitron.

So I'll start hunting soon for a Sabre 2 135, which I will load at 1.35~1.4. I'll make the transition at the beginning of next season, after some warm up days at the DZ, so I have time to think and choose wisely. I'm aiming for a slow introduction to landings with induced airspeed. That's why I am interested in Sabre 2 and similar canopies. Pilots and Safires seem to dive a bit less and have a flatter trim, so I am not really interested in them, and neither I am in more aggressive canopies like Katanas. Also, 135 is the absolute smallest my container can fit, so I would be more interested in a canopy that packs big, than in one that packs small. Keeping that in mind, I have a few questions, so input to any of them would be appreciated: -How do the recovery arc and the "trim steepness" of the Volt/Magellan/Lotus compare to the ones of the Sabre 2? I have seen the flight characteristic descriptions, but comparable input instead of the usual marketing wording would be interesting. -How do these canopies pack with respect to the Sabre 2? Larger or smaller? -Any other canopy that I should consider? Just for information: I've demoed a Nitron 135 and a Crossfire 139 (as well as a Sabre 2 135). I've discarded the Crossfire because it fits very loose in my container (more than the Sabre 2) and because I don't like the superlong openings. I've discarded the Nitron because I want my next container to fit a 120 tight, which wouldn't allow me to put a Nitron 120 on it, since it packs pretty big. If I go for a Nitron now I can't go for a Nitron 120 later. That would mean that I either change to Sabre 2 again, which is not a very consistent progression, or I look for an elliptical canopy that packs smaller than a Nitron, and whose characteristics fit my needs (not overaggressive and not superslow openings). Another reason to discard these 2 canopies is to avoid rushing into fully elliptical territory. I enjoyed using them, I didn't have any problem, and I think I can handle them without issues, but I don't want to allow my ego to dictate my canopy progression . My current plan is Sabre 2 class 135 -> Sabre 2 class 120 -> Crossfire 2 class 119 -> ?. But that's far in the future so it might change.

That's what I thought when I saw them for the first time! I wonder why nobody else follows the same approach. What are the downsides to it? For those who are not familiar with that design: Those rigs have the RPC partially exposed, and hold in place by just a couple of flags (I think just 2). What looks like the side flaps is the freebag, wrapped in cordura.

Well, all that is somewhat obvious . I intended to get a deeper discussion to try to extract a bit the knowledge that all of the riggers out there have, but is not written anywhere. Something like: "Brand X extended the sides of the container towards the RPC to cover the risers when they go down the main tray at the sides of the reserve tray. In my opinion, in the case of a total malfunction, this can cause a larger extraction force than brand Y solution, that used secondary riser covers that do not slow down the extraction of the free bag." Or "The way brand Z sewed their corners is better because it is down in an angle that do not enclose the freebag, but as a result they had to change whatever other feature that causes whatever other effect". Or "Tuck tabs in container W are too long. That protects better the risers, but increase the extraction force. Instead, brand M uses a different shape that is equally effective but......" Basically discuss the trade offs of the different design decisions that affect extraction force. That was my idea of the thread, but maybe it is overly ambitious. Possibly it is also a bit too much to expect to get that kind of knowledge for free and without spending years and years on a rigging loft. But I think it would be an interesting discussion for everyone, maybe I am wrong. Maybe a better way of looking at it would be to explain why everyone thinks that each brand is better than others in this regard, but then for sure it will end up in a brand war :-P.

In another thread the tightness of reserve trays pop up again. I wonder what are the opinions of everyone on that topic. So the question is: Which design features make a container less restrictive once the RPC is out? Examples? Racers will come on top of the list, I guess, due to the lack of stiffeners and closed corners. What about the others? Does a wide top flap close to the yoke make some containers more prone to increase the extraction forces (since the reserve tray is more enclosed)? Rigging Innovations and Sunrise Manufacturing rigs are two examples that come to mind. Is this true for both? Or for none? What about other examples that have this characteristic? Do square sewed corners affect extraction forces? Which containers have this kind of corners in the reserve tray and which don't? What about riser covers? Which designs hinder the extraction of the reserve? Is having secondary riser covers like Vectors good or bad for this? What about other parameters? Which rigs use too many stiffeners in delicate places? Can the design of the freebag affect this? Can the placement of the AAD pocket affect this (I guess in the wall that separates the reserve tray from the main tray it will increase the friction, whereas in the bottom of the tray it wouldn't)? Please note that the target of the thread is to discuss design features, not having a brand war.

I would agree, especially with some of the popular trends regarding rig design and common field rigging questions. Tight rig + closed corners + poor part comparability = excessive extraction forces, which we have seen more than enough. I agree as well. The reason I was suggesting a double cutter is not because I think the chances of the cutter failing are too big, but because I can't see a downside to it, besides the price, of course. The point made about tight containers is a very good one. That's the reason why I changed my reserve to another of the same size but lower pack volume. It bothered me because the design of my current rig seems to be prone to that problem. I think it is a good idea to start another thread about that topic.

Absolutely! However, I don't see how poor rigging can be addressed at design and manufacturing time. The manufacturer has no control over the professionalism of any rigger. The other effects are more under the manufacturer control.

That's true unless the cutter is installed in the outermost flap. I didn't picture that situation correctly. In the rig I was looking that is not the case, so thank you for that thought. Are all the rigs with the cutter on top like that (cutter not in the outermost flap)? Generally speaking, I agree. But assuming a perfect cutter, another perfect cutter on the bottom might outdo perfection . Also, assuming a perfect cutter, the best place for it is on top, which some people don't like (rightfully so, because perfection doesn't exist), and that was the situation I intended to address, for extra peace of mind of those that don't like the location on the top of the reserve tray, because it might prevent the user from opening the reserve tray manually. As mxk pointed out, if the top cutter fails and pinches the loop, the bottom cutter doesn't matter, as the flaps between the cutter and the pin are trapped, unless the cutter is installed in the outermost flap. However, if you pull the ripcord, the bottom cutter operates correctly, and the top cutter pinches the loop, it will open. A container without the bottom cutter wouldn't open if the top cutter pinches the loop, regardless of what the user does with the ripcord. So I still see some potential benefit. A failure of any cutter in such a design still gives the user the possibility to save his/her own life, not like single cutters placed on top pinching the loop. Even though I wouldn't bet on the user saving his/her life below AAD activation altitude. Whether it is good enough for research and implementation or not is still debatable

That's what I meant. With a cutter failure I'd die because it would prevent me from opening the container, but that that fact wouldn't matter, as I would be too low anyway. The comment about cord tension makes a good point, I didn't think about it, but I am not sure it is true. There are plenty of videos around of AAD cutters cutting Cypres cord without tension on it. If the cutter is working as designed, that shouldn't be an issue. But even if it was, if the top cutter pinches the closing loop, the bottom of it is not attached to the container anymore (because it has been cut by the bottom cutter), so it should open anyway.

Sorry for resurrecting a death thread . I am thinking in which rig should I get next. The one that I'm currently thinking of has the cutter in one of the closing flaps. It bothers me a bit, but not too much. My rationale is that if the cutter fails for whatever reason, and pinches the loop, I am already pretty much death, because below activation altitude I wouldn't have time to pull the ripcord myself. The amount of errors/failures that would stack up for that to happen (no manual ripcord pulling, no RSL activation, and cutter failure) is, from the probabilistic point of view, close enough to 0 to be comfortable with the trade off offered by the top location of the cutter. I don't like it, but I doubt that it will contribute significantly to a negative outcome. At best, if that happens, you would speculate if pulling the ripcord after activation altitude could have give me a small chance . The rig I am considering has fully enclosed RPC, and a wide (close to the yoke) top flap (which I guess can make the extraction of the freebag a bit more difficult, but it is difficult to say without manually exploring the reserve tray), so I am more concerned about letting the RPC out as fast as possible. Now, after explaining my rationale, just to see if somebody has any input to it, I have a question unrelated to my thinking, but related to the thread . Why not using double cutters? One on the closing flaps and another in the bottom? This way there are 4 possible scenarios: -Both cutters work: Awesome, the closing loop do not have to zigzag as much as in the bottom placement, so it effectively works as pulling the pin. In other words, better than a single bottom cutter. -Bottom cutter fails, top cutter works: Scary, one cutter failed, but the other did, and again with optimal performance, as the loop doesn't zigzag. In other words, better than a single bottom cutter. -Top cutter fails, bottom cutter works: Scary, pulling the ripcord wouldn't release the RPC, but the bottom cutter might save the day, with a bit of delay because the loop has to zigzag between the grommets. In other words, better than a single top cutter. -Both cutter fail: Well, fuck. In other words: worse than a bottom cutter because it effectively prevent you from saving your own life, but chances of successful manual activation below automatic activation are pretty damn slim anyway. I can see why some manufacturers that opts for the bottom cutter wouldn't want this double cutter. But I don't see why a manufacturer that opts for the top cutter wouldn't want this double cutter. There is no downside to it, besides the increased price of the AAD. Any thoughts on that? BTW: I'll probably change rigs far in the future, I think I can downsize again in my current rig. Does somebody know how a 135 canopy fit in a Wings W11?

I am not sure I see the point. Common recommendations are to stay away from fully elliptical and very steeply trimmed canopies until having enough experience. Having enough experience goes together with high[ish] wingloads (if you want to swoop at least), as nobody that is into swooping will keep a WL of 1.0. So by the time you have enough experience for a fully elliptical canopy that dives so aggressively you'll have a high[ish] wingload (1.4+?). Given that situation you either upsize or you start jumping a Katana with little experience. Or you build a lot of experience in tame canopies with light wingloads. I understand though that you can learn how modern canopies dive and recover in a larger size (sizes where crossbraced canopies are not available). But then 1 question pop in my head: Why the overlap, if a crossbraced of the same size can dig you out more efficiently and take you further in your swoop? Because the canopy doesn't swoop, the pilot does . Did that guy jumped a Velo? Does he swoop further in a Katana than in a Velo?

For me (and keep in mind that I didn't jump a Katana or a crossbraced canopy yet) it is surprising that there are so many Katanas out there. It is pretty close to the "ground hungryness" and sensitivity to input of a Velocity, but without the performance that comes with it. Why jump a Katana instead of a Velocity? It looks to me that a more sensible approach than Sabre 2 -> Katana -> Velocity -> Valkyrie is Sabre 2 -> Crossfire 2 -> Velocity (or a more tame crossbraced canopy and then a Velocity) -> Valkyrie/Petra This is at least the path that I intend to follow (if I ever take it that far, I might stick to a Crossfire 2 class of canopy). Any opinion from the experts on this?

I saw somewhere that they are planing to release 2 similar canopies with slightly different characteristics, but being both successors of the Crossfire 2. Also, you can take a look at some of the videos of the R&D department: https://vimeo.com/nzaerosports. The crossfire 3 prototypes look pretty cool....

For swooping I would say that Sabres are better than Stilettos. Sure, Stilettos can be snappier on turns, but the recovery arc is shorter AFAIK. People have been doing awesome swoops with Sabres, so I would go down that road. Katanas are better when highly loaded (or so I've read, I've never flown them), and are quite ground hungry, so I wouldn't consider them if I am not 100% sure. Crossfires can be something in between, with longer recovery arc than Stilettos, but not as aggressive as Katanas, and with a little bit more responsiveness than Sabres. There are also other manufacturers with good canopies (I've heard good things about Nitrons or Magellans for instance) that you might consider. I have less jumps than you, so don't consider my post too seriously, others with more experience will chip in.

He kept the shoes, not worthy of a SoFPiDaRF t-shirt. If you don't know what SoFPiDaRF is, and you think this is painful, do not look for it

Don't feel bad for that. Experienced people were beginners at some point, and I am pretty sure they appreciated help from more experienced people back then. Also, if you are jumping with beginners, try to find a partner with similar height and weight. Small girls are floaty, big guys drop like stones. What happened is quite normal. With somebody with a similar body it should be easier to keep up.