Deimian

And I think that's precisely because "youngsters" have grown up with it. Everyone today wants to film and share what they do and get as many likes as possible. That pushes some people not level headed to push their limits. Older people don't care so much about sharing their cool videos, so they don't try to get them before they are ready.

I had an old Sabre 1 loaded at about 1.25. 2 inches was the difference between dragging my ass every landing (I could arrest the vertical descent, but had nothing left for stoping the horizontal movement) or soft tip toeing every time.

I'm pretty sure the "A" and "V" have distinct bundles of options included in their respective base prices too. I'm not sure how crazy you can get in terms of adding options a la carte with either. You are right. In https://www.flyaerodyne.com/icons/ you can see the comparison. However, in the order form, I can't see any difference, besides the different embroidery options and the different preselected options.

I believe they simply split the cosmetics in two different order forms. The A and V seem to be essentially the same as the neXgen, but with a different design for the A or V sign in the flaps, nothing else.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4810702 Being said that, I agree with everything else you said and my rig has a Skyhook. I see it as a probability game.

Great! Now I have an excuse to talk to them again, these guys are awesome. I have to thank Pixie anyway. Last year she measured me for a new container, and it fits like a glove. Well, any shed of information will help to clear the unknowns of new canopies

So SIFE has both Icarus and NZ Aerosports canopies for demoing? Or you took the crossfire 3 from a different stand? And since there aren't so many Crossfire 3 reviews, I am sure people will appreciate yours

Two things: -I hope your profile is outdated. None of these wings are appropriate for 200 jumps -There are already a few threads about these new canopies: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4806599 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4832464 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4835485 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4838976

Well, for me the message of "new class of ultra high performance non-crossbraced wings" and "new class of ultra high performance [...] wings" is essentially the same. Ultra high performance is ultra high performance, independently of how you achieve it. You are right. But because they created this new class (), it is not clear where this canopy seats in terms of aggressiveness and performance. Well, I think in your example the classification is way more clear. No human can outperform a 600CC motorbike. But a good non-crossbraced canopy can outperform an old/bad crossbraced canopy. Great! I'll wait for your extensive report then

Crossbracing is a construction technique to have a more rigid and efficient wing, while using fewer lines to minimize drag. That's all it is. I am not ignoring words. If they claim to have made a "ultra high performance wing" the construction technique is secondary, it is just the means to get there. I agree though that what they meant is *probably* "a high performance wing one notch below crossbraced wings". But that is not what they said. And even if they did, not all crossbraced canopies are created equal. The performance (and target) of a Peregrine has nothing to do with the performance of a Xaos 21, Sensei or Excalibur (just to give some examples). So if what they meant is "a high performance wing one notch below crossbraced wings", which crossbraced wings are they talking about? Does it perform better or worse than entry level, or old crossbraced canopies? Is it more aggressive? Paying special attention to the "non-crossbraced" aspect of it, doesn't give any useful info per se, it just "pushes" you to make assumptions, which might or might not be correct. That is something that I hope it will be cleared up soonish. Because flying like a crossbraced wing can mean too many things. For instance, if it feels like a "Valkyrie lite", that's probably not a wise step in canopy progression if you come from a Sabre 2. But if it feels like a Velo with a shorter recovery arc, then it might be a good step. The issue for me is that the description makes it look like a super aggressive canopy (and the video loading it at 2.5 seems to confirm that), but the natural place for an advanced non-crossbraced canopy seems to be significantly less aggressive than that, so I am confused. Anyway, thanks a lot for your input, it is greatly appreciated. Since you jump in Schaffen, I am assuming you'll be at the Flanders Boogie. If so, Sife will have Icarus canopies for demoing. I hope they'll have X-Fires.

Could it be that it has never got an ISBN? Since it has been self-published maybe it never got it. This is the most detailed record I've found: http://www.worldcat.org/title/basic-performance-design-and-construction-of-ram-air-inflated-gliding-parachute-wings/oclc/182562313

Really? That's interesting. Most people comment that the recovery arc of Sabre 2 and Crossfire 2 is very similar. I flew a couple of times a Crossfire 2 and I had the similar feeling, but I didn't do any exhaustive testing. Have you flown a Katana? If so, how would you compare both? I made that comment. But my wording was more like "how can it be a transitional canopy if it is creating a new class of ultra high performance wings". My point was about being ultra high performance. An ultra high performance stepping stone doesn't make much sense in my opinion. Maybe it is simply a marketing gimmick that turned out to be too bold?

According to that description it seems to be more aggressive than Fluid Wing's Tesla (recommended for people with at least 500 jumps vs X-Fire's 800), and than Katana (recommended WL between 1.3 and 1.9). PD is usually pretty conservative, but still..... Another thing to consider is that the recovery arc is shorter than cross-braced canopies, so in theory it is not as steep as the Katana, and should have a shorter recovery arc as well. I've never jumped any of these, but I'll try to give it a shot to a Katana 120 (WL ~1.51) and a X-Fire 113-124 (~1.45-1.6) this summer during a boogie. Maybe then I can give my impressions. If it is that aggressive I guess I'll take something more conservative as my next canopy, particularly if I get it one size smaller than my current one. I don't want to go from a relatively "docile" canopy (Sabre 2 120) to a "ultra high performance wing" in a single step

I don't understand. How can a canopy that is "creating a new class of ultra high performance [...] wings" be at the same time a "gateway canopy"? And what is the point of having a WL of 2.5 in a non-crossbraced canopy? The description seems to show a canopy more aggressive than a katana, which for some people is already on the edge of reasonable aggressiveness for non-crossbraced canopies.

I think that's the key. If you are using a weight, the time needed to go to your rig, remove the weight, come back to the bag, open the flap and orientate the bag correctly, start making the 8 figure, and close the flap (they never want to close on the first try!) offsets a big chunk of the time saved avoiding rubber bands. But if you have to change rubber bands in a tight call........ that's a different story. Then semi-stowless are way faster just because the chances of having to change rubber bands are way less. Also, there is less rocking of the bag on deployment, which can be just positive. You're doing way too many steps there.. Once in the bag, grab it and take it to container, stow the lines, put it in the container, set shoulder flaps and close it... Let me numerate my steps: 1. Remove weight 2. Open the flap and orientate the bag correctly (flap on the ground) 3. Stow the lines 4. Close the flap 3 and 4 are unavoidable. 2 can be partly avoided (the rotation of the bag) but it causes more trouble than benefit, making the 8 figure on top of the bag and closing the flap is more tricky because the lines going to the risers go in the opposite direction of the closing flap, so keep them neat takes more time than simple putting the flap on the ground. I am talking about UPT semi-stowless bags here, other designs (like mPODs) have the flaps in other places and I follow a different approach on those. 1 is avoidable, at the cost of losing line tension and making the stowage more sloppy. And the only thing you save is walking from the rig to the bag after removing the weight, as walking to the rig and removing the weight itself have to be done sooner or later anyway. So I could save one walk of the lines (3-6 seconds depending on much it takes me to kneel again) and the bag rotation (2-4 seconds depending on the position of the tuck tabs of the closing flap). Removing these steps will make my packjob 5-10 seconds faster but make my packjob sloppier. This part is by far the less time consuming part of my packjobs. Having a tight fit, everything else takes more time. I pack in 7-10 minutes if I am in a hurry. If I save 5-10 seconds that's a saving of 0.83%-2.4%. Meh .

I think that's the key. If you are using a weight, the time needed to go to your rig, remove the weight, come back to the bag, open the flap and orientate the bag correctly, start making the 8 figure, and close the flap (they never want to close on the first try!) offsets a big chunk of the time saved avoiding rubber bands. But if you have to change rubber bands in a tight call........ that's a different story. Then semi-stowless are way faster just because the chances of having to change rubber bands are way less. Also, there is less rocking of the bag on deployment, which can be just positive.

Your husband wants to use a camera to look cool and show off. He will look like a tool and be "that guy". If you can make him understand that then he might quit that -IMO stupid- idea.

I couldn't agree more..... I think one of the few exceptions is SWS. It could of course be better, but their website is way more informative than most: http://sws.aero/en/products/fire/

Most if not all of the best freefly teams (VFS, freestyle, angle flyers...) fly vectors. That's not to say that vectors are better for freeflying that Curvs. Just that the container means nothing as long as the harness fits you and the container is freefly friendly.

Appropriate in this context means longer than the other way around. Which would imply more off site landings for the last ones in the load, which depending on the DZ might imply more chances of getting injured. And that is assuming that people are able to wait enough time.

1. I guess they mean 10% more canopy volume keeping the same container volume. In other words, because of the "bio curv" the space in the main tray is 10% larger than with a straight backpad. Means close to nothing in my opinion, you should simply check their size chart, that's all. 2. Yes, $100, it is in the order form http://www.rigginginnovations.com/files/Docuemnts/6/CURV%202.0%202015(1).pdf 3. No. But as somebody mentioned before they will release their MARD very soon. Look what MARD is if you don't know. Hint: the skyhook is a kind of MARD. 4. They simply have a patch of a material that don't slip as much as the cordura of the normal handles. A welcomed detail, but nothing critical in my opinion.

But if you do it the other way around the horizontal separation decreases and belly flyers would be right on top of the freeflyers, which increases the chances of a collision way more than with a decent horizontal separation.

That's the feeling I had too. It seems to me like FW is lacking an "entry level" crossbraced canopy, like JFX for NZ aerosports. On a related note, I personally consider the Velo fine as a first crossbraced canopy only if you come from a super aggressive non-crossbraced canopy (ie: Katana).

I agree with this that I like the simplicity of the wings boost and the lack of modifications to the container allowing for it to be retrofitted. The containers themselves are decently made. They are competitively priced and people still buy them. +1 on that. Generally speaking, I think pin based MARDs are better than skyhook. The skyhook was the first massmarketed MARD, it has worked pretty well, but could be improved. Pin-based MARDs are less bulky, simpler design, no (or almost no) container modifications, and I would even bet that there is less chance of it disconnecting when it shouldn't. What I don't like is the lack of Collins lanyard. I think it would be lovely to have better collaboration between manufacturers to make better and safer rigs. In this context, the holder of a pin-based MARD patent could allow its use in vector rigs, and in exchange UPT could allow collins lanyard to be integrated in the rigs of this other manufacturer. That would be a triple win. For UPT, for the other manufacturer, and for us, jumpers. Am I asking too much? Maybe Bill Booth can chip in and share his thoughts here? . Maybe opening a thread about "frankenrigs" would be interesting, to give feedback to manufacturers about what we would like to take from each one? For instance, I'd like to have a vector as a base rig, but with the following parts from a curv: d rings on the closing flaps (similar to Sigmas), the curvature on the back, "suregrip" handles and hip rings/leg straps. From Javelin I'd take the partially exposed RPC, the "phat daddy" handles (with "suregrip"), the chest rings, the backpad and the "outer shell" (lack of secondary riser covers, and the lateral flaps, Javelin's outer appearance is cleaner than any other rig IMO). From aerodyne the long middle ring. From Wings, its pin MARD instead of skyhook (but keeping the collins lanyard) ands its AAD cutter placement (same as Javelin).

I've jumped a wings for 500 jumps. There is nothing wrong with them. They are comfy, cheap and a decent quality. Not the best, but decent. I even had a malfunction on one (spinning main), and their "reserve boost" worked flawlessly, I had a reserve overhead as I reached arm stretch. However, you have to know a couple of things: -They are particularly sensitive to overstuffing the reserve. The design of the top reserve flap makes the reserve tray too "closed up", which might require more force to extract the reserve dbag, so get an appropriately sized reserve. -It will look sketchy if your rigger uses a closing loop too long, as the RPC will not be fully seated. But that applies to all rigs. On partially exposed RPC it is more evident though. -They don't accept slider holders as easily as other containers. Other than that they are perfectly fine IMO.