alan

I have to go with Jonathon's opinion on the Nitron. I have 15 or 20 jumps on a 135 so far at about 1.7#/ft2 and it has had really great bottom end lift and flair. Short recovery arc with a flat glide like the Stiletto. Speed is similar to Stiletto but I thought it had much better surf, better than my 136 Jedei also. That is hard for me to admit because I have always loved my Jedei. It has great openings, like a Stiletto with better manners, it stays on heading. It turns moderately fast with no real oversteer, but is not twitchy in the turns either. I'm going to put more jumps on it and also try out a 120, but so far I haven't found anything about it I don't like. The Safire is a much better canopy than it gets credit for, but you do have to take the time and jumps to learn to fly it the way it likes to be flown. Also, I adjust the brake settings on any canopy I fly after the first jump at the factory setting. I have yet to find a canopy that I like performance at the factory brake setting. Nitron I think is higher peformance than the Safire, at least in most areas, but is easier to fly. I chose the Safire as a transition canopy for my daughter for her first canopy from student gear. She jumped a PD 170 as a student (.9#/ft2) and is much happier with the Safire 149. I've seen her get 50 to 60 ft surfs into a 10 to 12 mph headwind since she learned to fly it. She said it sucked at first, while flying it like the PD 170. After a little coaching, she out surfs more experienced jumpers on supposedly more high performance canopies. I have not jumped the Crossfire 2 yet but have several jumps on the original model, 120 and 98, I think. They had performance in the same class as the Nitron, but as others have repeatedly pointed out, jump and evaluate for yourself. Each canopy has its' own personality and you have to find one that blends with yours. Experiment with brake trim. Geez, there are just so many variables, density altitude on the day(s) you demo, the wind, even your attitude and mind set. I really believe that at 15 to 20 jumps, you are just beginning to learn the particular canopy which means demoing is really a crap shoot at best too. Don't condemn a canopy because "you" don't like it, there are just too many factors that can have had an influence on your perceptions and judgement. HMA lines are an issue now because there is the perception that they are "new" and unproven in the field. They are not new, but have not been in widespread use here in the US. My guess is that HMA will for all intents and purposes, effectively replace Vectran on the majority of ultra high performance canopies while Spectra will remain the standard on most others. Something new will come along as well. alan

I don't like anonymous crap here either. My experience with Dan has been that he has taken a unique perspective on the truth in the past. One specific experience comes to mind. I e-mailed him with several specific questions that came up on a thread here in the forum quite some time ago. Dan e-mailed a response and I posted that information. Dan then made a post in which he stated that he doubted he would have said what I had posted. I responded with cut and pastes of our correspondence, since I felt Dan had called my integrity into question. Dan went off on several tangents and resorted to an accusation that I was posting things out of context. I then posted our exchanges in entirety to address that accusation. About then Sangiro stepped in and essentially said enough is enough. Since then, I have mostly avoided threads in which Dan plays a significant role. I'm sure Chuck remembers the episode, as he sent me several e-mails trying to intervene and act as a voice of reason, since both Dan and I had let our ego's dominate the real purpose of the forum. Bottom line....Dan quite often makes valuable contributions in the forums but is a shameless self-promoter and often uses very carefully worded posts to that end. Setting personal differences aside, Dan is an asset to the forums here on Dropzone.com. alan

I would like to see it. Cold hard facts, as many as are available. No sanitizing or politically correct catch phrases. Inculde all available,verifyable information that is relevant. alan

I had the X-mod by PA done to my VX when it came time for a re-line. It has the HMA lines. Only a little over 20 jumps so far, but they still look new. My guess is that they will prove superior to the Vectran and Spectra lines over the long run. alan

Removeable slider is nice. Pull the tab and tuck the slider in your shirt or jumpsuit. Takes longer to pack and you need to be sure it is assembled correctly when packing. alan

Deploy at 2500'. 600' opening puts you at 1900'. USPA recommends making decision to cutaway by 1800' Reality is it will likely take 200' to 300' to assess the situation and make a decision. USPA recommends cutaway by 1600'. Reality is it will likely be at 1200' to 1400' before the cutaway is accomplished. Reserve opening will likely be about 200', maybe less, most likely more. That leaves one at about 1000' identifying a line-over on the reserve. Assess it and decide while spinning in a descent of 45+' per second. That gets one at 800'. Attempt to clear it by "popping" the brake line. We're now at 700'. Well, maybe we skip this and go straight for the knife. Locate the knife, retrieve it (hopefully without dropping it) while pulling 2 G's, more or less. Find the correct line and cut it and only it as the rate of descent increases along with the violence of the turn and the G forces. Remember, if one cuts the wrong line or lines in the excitement, it may very well make the situation worse. Rate of descent is now likely to be 80' per second. Can one retrieve the knife, find the correct line and cut only it in less than 10 seconds? Unless one has had prior experience with a spinning malfunction, I would bet not. OK, let's say one can. The correct line has been cut. If one is are lucky and/or good, they might just have enough time and altitude to do a rear riser flare into who knows what. My point? 1. Open higher, especially with one of the newer canopies that takes longer to open. 2. A larger, lightly loaded reserve can actually be landed with a line-over. Use the other brake to control the spin and descent to whatever extent is possible. PLF. 3. A hook knife has many practical uses for skydivers and should be carried. In many, if not most situations, cutting lines on one's reserve during a line-over is not one of them. 4. During most FJC'c (I hope), we teach a student that a line over on the main is a low speed malfunction and can sometimes be cleared by a hard yank on the toggles, accompanied by an immediate release in the tension, thus "popping" the offending line off and clearing the malfunction. It worked for me on my old Sabre 170 once. I would suggest that making an attempt to clear the line-over would be a more sensible use of time and altitude than groping for a hook knife, but situations vary. alan

First impression is.... WHOOOHOO! Openings seem a little better than with the original Vectran line set, although I had a good one that did not surge or get brutal. It still has that familiar FX/VX bow-tie opening, but seems to not seek a heading as much, it just blossoms out in 3 to 4 seconds. Glide so far seems to be flatter, but more speed?!?! Front and rear riser pressure seems less at initial input and does not build as fast or as much. It is more sensitive to stalling on rear risers, especially with the brakes left set. Also seems to have more oversteer on rear risers with brakes set and released. Toggle pressure is similar to before the mod, perhaps a tad lighter. Dive and dive recovery.........it had a long recovery arc before, but now, after an aggressive dive it requires toggle input to recover. Before, I had to use an aggressive toggle turn and transition to front risers during the momentum loss in the turn in order to get into a critical dive angle where I could sustain the dive for several thousand feet with double front risers. Now, I can initiate a critical, sustainable dive with direct input of fronts, rears or toggles. I really like this, as there is no such thing as starting my landing maneuver too high and planing out early......just let it dive and steer it to what ever heading I want during the dive. I haven't done any rear riser landings yet, I think that is going to take quite a few more jumps before I'll get comfortable with that. The flare seems to be stronger, with longer surfs and better shut down. It feels like it maintains its' lift at a much slower speed now. One thing that it still has is very high toggle pressure at the bottom of the recovery arc after a high speed dive. By high speed, I mean in excess of 70 mph. My exit weight is about 225# right now on the 89. I can feel the turbulence in the air a little more now than before, but it has been stable and maintains good pressurization, even during the flare. I'm going to get a few more jumps on it before finalizing any conclusions but these are my initial impressions. At this point, I would have to say that the X-mod is a definite improvement and a very good value, especially considering the cost of line replacements for Vectran. alan

Hook, I've put a few jumps on my VX after getting the X-mod from Precision done on it when it was due for a re-line. I'm a happy camper so far. alan

No, you have over simplified it. My definition went more like this: "For me, if I make an input quickly/deeply enough, there is a point where the response of the canopy is a combination of a change in direction with a very tight radius, a momentary loss of momentum and airspeed and the risers unload relative to what they were prior to the input and then the canopy begins to accellerate." During a carve, the canopy will unload as well, but at a different points of time in the manuever and at different rates, which is what I meant when I said, "During any speed building manuever, the load will increase and decrease to varying degrees and at varying rates at different stages of the manuever." alan

From another thread in this forum. "Don't get too caught up in the terminology of flat turn, flared/flaring turn, braked turn, etc.. Different people will give you varying definitions anyway, including me. Experiment with the various options and find out how your canopy responds under different conditions. That is one of the joys of being a canopy pilot, using each jump as a new and unique learning experience. Too many of us are content to just learn enough to survive under normal circumstances and then just do the same thing over and over. What fun it is to have a plan for each jump, one that allows us to learn and develop while exploring the parameters of our canopy's performance. And then do that with each successive canopy! Flat turn: Short, slow, smooth, steady input of either toggle followed by similar input of the opposite toggle to maintain airspeed with minimal loss of altitude. A coordinated return to neutral will result in a canopy at full flight with little or no loss of altitude. One possible use would be when you miss judged your altitude on a smooth day and don't have the altitude for a "normal" turn onto final. Flaring/flared turn: Short, slow, smooth, steady and even input of of both toggles at the same time, continueing into an increased input of either side that results in a shallow turn during the flare. Additional but proportionally less input of the opposite toggle can be used to maintain or gain altitude during the turn and airspeed will be lost. Bringing both toggles to the flared position will stop the turn and finish the flare. One possible use woud be avoiding another jumper on the ground who has walked into your flight path during the flare/surf part of your landing, or perhaps you are doing a crosswind landing. Braked turn: Similar to flaring turn, but from the braked position one toggle is depressed while the opposite toggle input is reduced. Unlike the flat turn, this turn should result in an increase of airspeed during the turn, with the pilot adjusting the rate of descent/altitude loss. One possible use woud be when you have missed judged your altitude on a somewhat turbulent day and can't do a "normal" turn onto final but want a little extra speed for canopy pressurization. There are numerous scenarios where each technique could have an application or even where you may want to transition from one into another. An example might be where you have decided a flat turn would provide a safer landing but during the execution, you realize that you have conserved enough altitude that you may over shoot your intended landing area, so you transition into a braked turn. As you can see, the possibilties are too numerous to cover in a few paragraphs. As you experiment and gain experience you will find many, many applications that will suit your flying style, skills and abilities." alan

Don't get too caught up in the terminology of flat turn, flared/flaring turn, braked turn, etc.. Different people will give you varying definitions anyway, including me. Experiment with the various options and find out how your canopy responds under different conditions. That is one of the joys of being a canopy pilot, using each jump as a new and unique learning experience. Too many of us are content to just learn enough to survive under normal circumstances and then just do the same thing over and over. What fun it is to have a plan for each jump, one that allows us to learn and develop while exploring the parameters of our canopy's performance. And then do that with each successive canopy! Flat turn: Short, slow, smooth, steady input of either toggle followed by similar input of the opposite toggle to maintain airspeed with minimal loss of altitude. A coordinated return to neutral will result in a canopy at full flight with little or no loss of altitude. One possible use would be when you miss judged your altitude on a smooth day and don't have the altitude for a "normal" turn onto final. Flaring/flared turn: Short, slow, smooth, steady and even input of of both toggles at the same time, continueing into an increased input of either side that results in a shallow turn during the flare. Additional but proportionally less input of the opposite toggle can be used to maintain or gain altitude during the turn and airspeed will be lost. Bringing both toggles to the flared position will stop the turn and finish the flare. One possible use woud be avoiding another jumper on the ground who has walked into your flight path during the flare/surf part of your landing, or perhaps you are doing a crosswind landing. Braked turn: Similar to flaring turn, but from the braked position one toggle is depressed while the opposite toggle input is reduced. Unlike the flat turn, this turn should result in an increase of airspeed during the turn, with the pilot adjusting the rate of descent/altitude loss. One possible use woud be when you have missed judged your altitude on a somewhat turbulent day and can't do a "normal" turn onto final but want a little extra speed for canopy pressurization. There are numerous scenarios where each technique could have an application or even where you may want to transition from one into another. An example might be where you have decided a flat turn would provide a safer landing but during the execution, you realize that you have conserved enough altitude that you may over shoot your intended landing area, so you transition into a braked turn. As you can see, the possibilties are too numerous to cover in a few paragraphs. As you experiment and gain experience you will find many, many applications that will suit your flying style, skills and abilities. alan

You have some interesting answers here. I would urge you to ask yourself if there is any point in the manuever where the canopy unloads after an aggressive control input. During any speed building manuever, the load will increase and decrease to varying degrees and at varying rates at different stages of the manuever. Additionally, how would I define "aggressive"? For me, if I make an input quickly/deeply enough, there is a point where the response of the canopy is a combination of a change in direction with a very tight radius, a momentary loss of momentum and airspeed and the risers unload relative to what they were prior to the input and then the canopy begins to accellerate. On the other hand, does the input result in an increasing load during the heading change and only decreases as you/after you decrease the input. alan

Michele, Sorry, no, I hadn't read your apology.....our posts overlapped, that happens. I'm also sorry if my responses strike a nerve with you. My intent is not to irritate or provoke you but simply to provide honest, straight forward answers. I even gave your flame red responses the benefit of the doubt and assumed that it was just an efficient way for you to distinguish your comments from mine. Yes, you did misinterpret my "pet peeve".......if I am tired of addressing an issue, then I ignore it and don't reply. That seldom happens. More often than not, the regulars here pick up the ball and a thread develops with the right answers. I tend to be blunt and that doesn't seem to sit well with you. In a later post, you comment that you doubt if you will be asking any more questions here. That disappoints me and I would hope that you would not let your dislike for my writing style be the cause. You received quite a few replies from knowledgeable regulars here that I think gave you the answers you were looking for and didn't seem to strike the nerve that mine did. I'm not sure now if you really wanted to know if you had a streamer vs a slow opening or confirmation that your slow opening actually took 1200'. No matter, please keep using the forums for your questions and if you wish, I will leave the replies to the others. alan

That doesn't invalidate the point I was making. Yes, an ac may be overstressed without exceeding the vne, but exceeding the vne _implies_ that the ac may be overstressed. You ignored the meat of the post to nit pik on semantics. Yes, here we agree. My post was an attempt to bridge the gap between what worked on older design F-111 type canopies and the newer zero-P elliptical designs. At least that was what I thought I was doing when I posted the comments quoted below. "For an older F-111 type canopy, the technology wasn't used, so adding 1/4 brakes increased the aoa at the wing tips and helped prevent them from deflating and assisted in a more rapid re-inflation if there was a collapse. Newer designs incorporate technology that helps to keep the wing tips inflated during turbulence without the need to fly in brakes. So, in my opinion, to some degree, it seems as if everyone is at least a little bit correct here." alan

I'll try to clarify and address your concerns. I never implied that it was just a "catch", although I'm not sure how that makes a difference. You were at 4200' when you started your opening procedure, by your own words. That means you had to be seeing your altimeter reading. Perhaps you are trying to imply that you were anticipating a specific altutude an you "got a jump" on the procedure. What was your planned deployment alt.? 4500'? 4000'? 4200'? It doesnt matter though, as we seem to agree on 4200' Yes, I thought it was fair as well. Even if you were just waiting, it takes an instant for the brain to process in freefall. Lots happening in a hurry, especially for someone new. No, you are decellerating as the canopy deploys and the alti has time to "catch up". Also, the combination of snatch force and opening shock acts the same as light tap of your finger on the alti.....also aiding in the catch up. I was being very generous in the 2 sec. In reality wave and pull is usually over 3 sec. I was assuming that you did not wave off. Assuming you were anticipating pull altitude, which is seldom 4200', meaning you were either late or early, it still takes about 2 sec for the pull and throw....even for an experienced jumper. I wasn't including a controllabilty check as that would have taken an additional 5 to 10 secs and even more altitude. I assumed you were only checking for a good canopy and releasing the brakes. I didn't even add in time to check for other canopies around you as you are new and may have been alone or not been taught that yet. You may have done it in less than 5 sec, but I've only been doing/observing this for about 12 years. You're probably right, give yourself 30'. Easy one to agree on I guess! :-) I didn't even figure in the time for the bag to get to line stretch and the canopy to come out.....about 1/2 to 3/4 sec, which means about another 80' or more. I also didn't take away the altitude while the slider comes down and the canopy reaches full inflation, which both will affect your perception of the snivel/streamer question. But in your original estimation it was "over 1200" feet and now you are down to 1047' by your own math. I would hope that 12 years of experience, 2000 jumps, and observation of thousands more would lend some credibility to my responses, not to mention supprt from the designer of the canopy. Nope, just trying to present accurate information about the time/distance realtionship during canopy deployment, specific to the parameters you gave. 800' will seem like a very long opening when you are not accustomed to it. 600' will seem much more likeable. Both are normal for the Spectre. 400' is accually a common and comfortable opening. Your concerns are valid, but your perceptions/estimates of opening distances/times are a bit off. I was trying to address that because my pet peeve is jumpers tossing about claims of 1000' or 1200' openings like they happen all the time, especially on certain canopies. Pretty soon, everyone is having 1000' openings on a certain canopy. I'm sorry if my responnse ticked you off, it wasn't intended to do that. If you read it again you will see that I agreed that you had a long opening, just that it was within what the manufacturer would consider normal. What I doubted was what you ascertained as the distance it took to open. I used the parameters you gave (4200' and 2800') to give you an accurate depiction of what was taking place in terms of time/altitude within those parameters. There may be an option d)you experienced a long, but normal opening and it will happen again. It concerned you because fo your lack of experience and knowledge, and it ticked you off when someone with experience and knowledge gave you an answer you didn't like because you felt it questioned your ability to read an altimeter. I think this has been pretty well addressed through the combination of all of the responses. If you still have some concerns, let me know and I'll try to supplement what has already been posted, but it seems pretty thorough. alan

See alti reading 4200' Brain processes image and decision is made, about 1/2 sec = ~90' Alti lag time error/paralax = ~100' Actual wave off and pull, about 2 sec = ~350' Check canopy, get "squared away" and check alti, 5 sec = ~60' Read alti after all of above -2800' 4200 - 2800 = 1400' Total didtance covered from reading to reading. 1400 - 90 = 1310 1310 - 100 = 1210 1210 - 350 = 860 860 - 60 = 800' Distance remaining for actual opening and snivel According to an e-mail conversation I had with John LeBlanc of PD a short time ago, (which I posted the relevant parts here on Dropzone.com the last time this came up) the Spectre is designed and has been tested to open in about 600' to 800', with 800' being a long opening. This is a pet peeve of mine and it seems to keep cropping up. You had a normal opening, although it was at the longer edge of the envelope. alan

I don't think these are good points. The balloon does not rely on airspeed to remain inflated and flying. Powered, fixed wing ac fly at speeds and altitudes where turbulence is greater and have a greater possibility of transitioning the ac into exceeding the vne. Do fixed wing pilots also reduce airspeed in the landing pattern (we generally fly our canopies under 3000' agl) when it is turbulent? Do they increase the flap setting? There is much less of a gap between the cruise and stall speeds our canopies than on fixed wing ac. If we fly in brakes, we are flying even closer to the stall speed and suddern turbulence may be more likely to be enough to cause a stall. Remember, we are flying non-rigid, ram-air wings, generally at relatively low altitudes, at relatively low airspeeds that do not come even close to a vne, although I doubt that any manufacturers even publish one for a parachute (well, maybe max. deployment speed, but how often do we approach that after we have begun flying the canopy). Collapse is the issue, not overstressing. The aoa is not constant on all ram-airs. Some may have a degree of wash out designed into the wing and others may not. For an older F-111 type canopy, the technology wasn't used, so adding 1/4 brakes increased the aoa at the wing tips and helped prevent them from deflating and assisted in a more rapid re-inflation if there was a collapse. Newer designs incorporate technology that helps to keep the wing tips inflated during turbulence without the need to fly in brakes. So, in my opinion, to some degree, it seems as if everyone is at least a little bit correct here. alan

According to Poynter's Parachute Manual, there was a recall of the early Sabre 190. I think the fix was an added brake-line. I seem to recall a change made in the size of the slider on some Sabres. Maybe I'm wrong. alan

You have some good replies and a nice start. You can also try doing some reading. There are some very good articles here in Dropzone.com that will help guide you. Go here http://www.dropzone.com/safety/articles/ and read everything from the Under Canopy and Landing sections. For a more technical and detailed discussion try this http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/highperf.pdf The Australian Parachute Federation also has some good reading on their web-site as does Performance Designs. I think that in order to learn to safely do high performance landings, you should have a basic knowledge of the aerodynamics involved in canopy flight so you can understand why your canopy will respond in a certain manner in given flight conditions. It will also enable you to predict, to a certain degree, how your canopy will resond to the control inputs you give it in a variety of situations. Good luck. alan

I agree with bill on this. We went thru a similar situation a few years back when someone in the FAA decided that installing a CYPRES in a new rig was a major modification. After going thru the system, it finally decided that "assembly" of a CYPRES in a rig designed to accpet it (CYPRES ready) was OK under AC 105 and could be done by a senior rigger. I don't think "assembly" is a "modification" by definition. Unfortunately, as bill has pointed out, the FAA grants considerable latitude to its' field representatives in interpretation of the FARs and this often leads to inconsistentcies in the application of the FARs. Why not discuss it with the DPRE in an open and non-confrontational way? You could refer to the CYPRES case/ruling to support the case that assembly of components that the system was designed to accept is not a major modification. The precedent has been established and the DPRE may not be aware of it. alan

Bill, I think it would be opening up a can of worms to include the main risers in the TSO. How bad is the problem of improperly manufactured risers currently? How many incidents have there been in the last few years of risers/3 ring releases not being manufactured to specs (design, not QC problems)? Wouldn't it be more practical to simply identify anyone manufacturing non-conforming risers/release systems and disseminate that information throughout the skydiving community? Couldn't the PIA assume some role in this? alan

Not everyone goes through AFF, some DZs don't offer it. alan

I just made a few jumps on a new Nitron with HMA lines. Used the mil spec rubber bads provided by RI for the d-bag on a Voodoo. I didn't even double wrap. The locking stows are the bigger bands and the side stows are the smaller ones. That canopy opened smooth as silk. The lines are smaller, but there are more of them because they are not cascaded so they seemed to have a comparable bulk in the bands to the Vectran lines in my canopy. I guess it can't hurt to double wrap, but the line stows seemed secure enough to me. BTW, that Nitron is one sweet canopy........I'll probably do an in depth review after I've had a few more jumps on it. alan

Canopy pressurization is a function of airspeed. Flying in 1/4 brakes slows the airspeed of the canopy and thereby reduces the pressurization. Jerry Sobieski addresses this issue pretty well in this article. http://www.afn.org/skydive/sta/highperf.pdf alan

I might be wrong, but when you scale the diagram you introduce an error if you scale the lengths of the suspension lines. It is too bad you won't take the time to e-mail John. I am sure that you would be surprised at how willing he would be to respond to you and how in depth and detailed his response would be. alan