cobaltdan

no, not unless you count the 33 sq foot rigid wing i ran off a cliff with.... my partner however has been hangliding forever and i can wait to learn. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

first time i tried paragliding i thought it was fun but a bit boring. my partner put me on a raged out old paraglider down a ski slope. big and docile.... the second time i tried paragliding i was hooked. this time a dhv3 competition wing. first off it is a bizzare feeling to be able to accend in a canopy, second even though they are bigger wings than what we are used to the right wing is every bit as acrobatic and in fact more so than a skydiving wing. i.e. when is the last time you front looped your skydiving canopy? the freakiest part to me learning was all of the diferent possible (non serious) collapses you can induce. first notion is sh^t cut away cut away....woops you cant. aerobatics on a paraglider can put higher g forces on you than a skydiving canopy (longer lines). anyway i highly recommend to all skydiving canopy pilots to give paragliding a try. just understand that the canopy you try first will be a dog. you will transition quickly to a fun wing, just give it a chance. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, we never got to finish this discussion, so now that you are back form PIA: Your student canopy, do you mean the Cobalt? yes i mean the cobalt and previously the space/alpha. we are also offering our 'indigo' canopy for this season in sizes 170, 190 & 210. it is slightly less tapered than a cobalt, and the openings are tuned for lighter wingloadings. Do you recommend putting students under Cobalts at a 1.2 wing loading? yes, anyone you would consider safe under a sabre, safire or hornet is equally safe on a cobalt. Has this been done? yes At what wing loading is a Cobalt "ideal" for beginners, and how many skydives (range) do you define "beginner" as? around 1.2 off student status. again anyone you would consider safe on a sabre, safire or hornet. Does Atair have a chart showing performance vs. wing loading for the Cobalt?, not a recommended wing loading chart, most manufactures have those, PD has it right on the label. check out our web site faq page. How do you define performance? Max speed? Max turn rate? Glide ratio? Altitude lost in a 360-degree turn? all of the above, depends on context. Why do you say a square canopy (Sabre) will have more forward speed at the same wing loading as the Cobalt, but the Cobalt has less drag and is more efficient? Isn't this contradictory? no it isn't. Would you agree that a common characteristic of elliptical canopies is a higher max turn rate and faster turn response than an equally sized, material, and wing-loaded square canopy? reducing drag from the ends of a canopy will translate to a faster turning speed all things being equal. but they are not, there are more variables to consider. a designer can make an elliptical canopy that does not turn as fast as a less elliptical canopy. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

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)

when precision began using hma, we rasied serious concerns. we knew about the material for several years from the paragliding industry. to refresh: a single fiber of hma will loose 60% of its strength after 4 hours of sunlight. it is uv and blue light sensitive. uv coatings do not work well and are not even being used. bartacking weakens the braded lines, special attention must be taken. many paraglider companies simply overlap and glue the lines with to make attachments. you see alot of hma on competition wings (competition wings are trashed after about 50 hours btw). the material had isues on standard wings as about a year after hma was introduced there were a rash of fatalities and injuries due to lines breaking. at the time it was even banned from use in germany. it has been pointed out that skydiving canopies are perhaps different as they are not exposed to sunlight for long periods. i do not agree. jumps add up, and canopies are still exposed to uv and blue light when left out on packing mats. white tarp roofs do not filter blue light or black light uv. slider and deployment wear are also imposed on skydiving wings. do i think that hma has a place in skydiving wings: yes. with careful manufacturing, user maintenece, and short product life cycles, it is suitable and has some advantages for specialized wings. will we manufacture canopies with hma: no. why not: it is my perception that preventative maintence does not exist in skydiving. the percentage of skydivers that always pack their own canopies, do preventative maintence and change their lines religously as per the canopy manufacturer's instructions are non existant to too small to cater any product for. besides the entire reasoning to switch to hma is mislead imo anyway. spectra does change dimensions. yes. but it does so predictably. if you do your homework you can design canopies that, are not very sensative to changes in outer line length, and go into better not worse trim as the spectra shrinks. additionally the shrink of spectra is only several percentage. most manufacturers have trouble holding overal dimensions to similar specs on other aspects of the canopy. with softer opening canopies you are far more likely to snap a hma line on a hook turn than opening. this will likely be below your hard deck. spectra is not prone to snaping. i have yet to see any postings from titanium club members saying: yea damn spectra went out of trim causing my crash and broke my femurs. you will never see me or anyone from atair speaking negatively about a competitors product. i believe it is quite poor form. i make exception when i see something that i believe will lead to serious injury. sincerely, dan atair aerodynamics www.extremefly.com Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

we recommend a "jim cazer" manufactured 22" zp collapsable for our canopies up to 135 and a 24" for canopies over. a properly manufactured 22" pilot has far more drag force than required to open any small-medium size container and canopy, ditto for a 24" and larger canopies. anything larger is unnecessary and can adversly effect line snatch force, deployment, and equipment wear. construction techniques that you can get away with on larger pilots, is not up to par on smaller ones. hence the misconception that smaller pilots do not work well. additionally there is a discrepency in how people lable size, i.e. cut size or sewn size? of all pilots chutes we have seen jim cazer and rws are the only ones manufactured correctly for use in small sizes. btw bill booth told me while inspecting our 22" pilot is that rws will be making a similar standard size. bill confirmed all the correct construction techniques on the jim cazer design and explained the construction errors of other manufacturers to me. perhaps he will post some comments. as far as the posters delay of 3-4 seconds. there is something wrong with your pilot chute. sincerely, daniel preston atair aerodynamics www.extremefly.com Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

"If someone is jumping a Sabre and is considering going to a Stiletto of the same size, they will notice different flight characteristics, mainly due to the different plan form." wrong, not mainly because of the planform, mainly because of the sum of many design variables. this is why canopies with more 'agressive' planforms can be more docile and canopies with less 'agressive' planforms can be pocket rockets. this is getting beat to death. i hope to see you at pia and we can discuss further. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

we use and are big fans of gelvenor. note that it is a falacy that it is heavier. this notion was born out of a manufacturing error about 7 years ago by gelvenor that somehow made it past qc and into a bunch of triathalons. this was promtly corrected and the material is first rate with the lowest defect rate of any manufacturer. our direct experience with domestic material was an 18% defect rate and we were told that pd has had even higher reject rates with the material. as far as major repairs as rob points out, they definately should be done at the factory. a qualified master rigger rarely sews canopies all day and as such on a time basis would not be as economical as a factory repair. additionally our canopies have specific pretensioning on tapes which would be difficult for an outside rigger to know about or perform. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

hook, imo a cobalt is a superior choice to a sabre/2, safire/2, or hornet. loading tends to be slightly higher on a cobalt for identical foward speed. i.e. 1.0 sabre = 1.2 cobalt. anyone who is safe flying a sabre, safire or hornet class canopy will be equally safe or safer flying a cobalt at similar to slightly higher wing loading. chart: we have a real world wingloading chart posted on our web site. what i mean by real world is a list of where most of our customers fall into. i.e. begineer 1.2-1.4, intermediate 1.4-1.6 etc... and btw we have always used pia standards of measure. the reason some companies do not is simply marketing. i.e. another company uses a computer program as we do to scale canopies. they can measure their canopies to any standard easily. but it is simply a marketing strategy to measure so as to skew results to create a perceived lighter wing loading. i.e take a safire it is easier to use a different standard of measure so as to be able to market a 1.0 loading recomendation for a begineer than to simply state the truth as we do. i.e. a particular canopy is suitable for a begineer at 1.2, etc... if a canopy is more efficient there can be less of it for the same effect. you do not care about footage you care about efficiency. extra sail area that does not generate lift does you little good. most jumpers do not realize that the extra area of a square canopy superimposed over an elliptical is simply drag and does little for lift. even though the canopy is larger it can not be more efficient. there are equally significant gains in efficiency by reducing canopy distortions. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

atair line trims do compensate for shrinkage. in fact they count on it to go into better trim and stay that way for the majority of the line sets life. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

general repairs and relines are performed by our authorized repair facility: pierre ponson rigging in suffolk virginia. if the repair is major i.e. replace a cell or two the repair is performed by our factory in europe. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

been a very long day. just finished up. spent the second shift setting up a new factory space for expansion. i am quite dizzy from oiling the floors. you do not realize the degree of fumes until your out of it.... anyway, a quicky on characterizing canopy performance. most manufacturers recommended loading charts are bs. they are so skewed towards conservative that everyone ignores them. from day one we have tried to provide real world charts. additionaly we provide actual data. i.e other companies publish ad after ad stating stuff like " softest opening canopy ever period!" with nothing to substantiate. we provide dataloged force vs. time graphs and live demonstrate 180mph deployments at boogies. any perceived hype you hear coming from my mouth is simply passion or excitement, i always have hard data to back it up. im an engineer not a salesman. with or without dataloggers a manufacturer can provide a realistic chart of canopy performance at different wing loadings. without a datalogger it will be pretty basic but still more useful that the simple tapered, semi, elliptical canopy labeling, which is just meaningless as it does not take into consideration wingloading or the actual planform. with dataloggers 1 jump per wingloading (although more is better) is all that is needed to gather the data required for a super performance chart. the pilot must fly a general routine. we have invested an insane amount of money developing out dataloggers, and they are available to other companies. numbers dont lie. every canopy company should have one. our newest model is revolutionizing military applications containing our new inertial nav. unit. data is recorded to flash cards 360' yaw, pitch, roll, acceleration and velocity in all axis, angular rates up to 1200' / sec, plus 3dimensional gps accurate to 2m, barometric altitude, 4 riser links, + desired aditional sensors. this new dataloger goes beyond just testing canopy openings and allows complete classification of a canopy's flight envelope. this was done so as to allow us to create a software simulator. canopies are recorded and then the data is imported in to our software. the software then can 'fly' generating a virtual gps fix. this false signal is received by an autopilot computer. the simulator receives the output steering controls from the autopilot and reacts accordingly in its generation of its gps signal. this allows autonomous parachute systems and uav's to be tested and perfected quickly. anyway, i am babbling. hope to see everyone at the pia. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

atair has made custom logo canopies for companies from red bull to budwiser. fax or email a desired graphic for a quote. sincerely, dan www.extremefly.com Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

the atair link above did not work... atair troll page (being up dated soon): http://www.extremefly.com/aerodynamics/images/press/atair_ad_BASE.jpg atair's main page link: http://www.extremefly.com sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

hey tom, if it was simply wet and dried t is probably fine, but prolonged moisture can cause mildew and weaken the fibers considerably. but the stuff is cheap enough to replace. why risk it? be safe. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

hey hook, "True, there are beginner-class canopies w/ more taper than some high performance canopies, but there aren't any elliptical beginner-class canopies," there are: i.e. alpha vs space: market conception is that the alpha is an fully elliptical swoop machine while the space is a semi-tapered begineers canopy. the two canopies are 100% identical they have the same planform(btw also identical planform to the cobalt and onyx). . so at light loadings if particular canopy design performs docile and is ideal for beginers it is called tapered or semi, at high wing loadings with more agressive performance it is called fully elliptical, even though it is the same planform. i am trying to educate that planform does not dictate performance level. it is only 1 variable of many that determines the performance level of a canopy design. so yes our student canopy is considerably more elliptical than many canopies you will see in swoop competitions. breaking things down into these marketing terms is definately misleading and acceptance of such limits the amount of information available to the consumer from manufacturers. most manufactureres will simply tell you what you want to hear to make a purchase. "Breaking down canopies into different classes by square, semi-elliptical, elliptical, and cross-braced doesn't seem like that bad of an idea, given the lack of an alternate idea and serves as a pretty good guide to a canopy's characteristics." exactly my point in that it is not a pretty good guide. better is to simply view a chart of a canopy's perfromance vs wing loading. when it comes to modern canopies you are no longer a parachutist, you are a pilot. i would like to see jumpers be far more educated about the wings they pilot. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

tom, LOL , glad you are happy with the troll. about the stabilizer measurement, i will verify and get back to you. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

i hate these type of threads. the degree of taper is only 1 variable of many that determines if a canopy is a student canopy or pocket rocket. there are beginner canopies with more taper than some extreme canopies ! thinking of the 'degree of ellipticalness' or terms like tapered, semi-tapered, or semi-elliptical is technically incorrect in this context and simply misleading. these terms are simply marketing jargon to describe performance at a given wing loading for a target consumer. all born by manufacturers catering to a general consumer ignorance. put up a poll for canopy type and wingloading. it would be more informative. sincerely, dan ps. there is no such thing as fully elliptical in a skydiving wing. Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

best is to forget charts and subjective pack volume figures and simply to ask the rig manufacturer. most companies have sent the rig manufacturer canopies to pack and properly size containers for. the rig manufacturer will have a list of tested combinations. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

trolls both vented and unvented have taken several medals gold, silver and bronze in the world base championships combined in the last two years in a row, with only 2 canopies competing. it is a trully an exceptional canopy. robert petnic probably has the most #'s under a troll at this point. i will ask him if i can post his email for questions. robert and kathy at morpheus are also excellent for support and questions. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)

speak with the rig manufacturer. sincerely, dan Daniel Preston atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military)