VectorBoy

Yes this one had the zippers on the sides and little powerful rare earth magnets instead of snaps to hold the booties up post flight. There was also no graffics on this suit. Unlike the Matter suits ( and most every suit really ) there is no specific arm wing mesh covered vents but instead just a continious gap along the leading edge of the arm. It is held constant by the lengths of the cuttaway loops. Loic did mention changes in manufacturing but the conversation was in regards to the suit from the beginning back in 99. I like how the back wing zipper is installed with the pull to the interior of the suit so you place it down on the rig and there is no turning it over.

I heard some people refer to them as the expert. I'm not sure of any differences from Loic's previous designs, do you know how( or if ) they are different? I thought they refered to it as the expert to keep the confusion down between it and the access which I have not tried but the access is a two piece suit and looks very easy to get into and fly.

Bill does size and wingloading of a canopy play a role in recovery arc?

Yes I apologise. Its just confusing to hear Hi-performance used to define some characteristics of one canopy over another.

----------------------------------------------------------- Why wouldn't you want soft smooth on heading openings with a CRW canopy? Some CReW competions require the canopy to open fast so the team can do the most rotations in the time allowed just like RW. Soft isn't a bad thing if it opens quik but you rarely have both.

Yes, yes, but to put "sublime" and "Motorhead" in the same sentence is, well, original to say the least. Damn Kallend, I'm surprized ! I bet you even know about girlschool.

These colors don't run..... unless you get them real hot & sweaty and into some kind of nasty spanking session.

Who's that make you? Jar Jar Binks? Nope. Just Pesky" Rebal" scum from Alderan. But we have the fastest jump ship. Its done the kestle run in less than twelve parsecs. Maybe you've heard of it?

I jumped the S-fly today. I was impressed with its construction. It looks like it is reinforced in all of the right places. Just like all of the single zipper suits it is a little harder to get into than the double zipper designs but then again those same designs mount to the rig very fast. Just as I thought it would be it is very easy to fly, very stable even flying it upside down. Yup I like this one too.

Any updates??. It is the end of the week

I think there will be a lot of 2nd hand ones available soon I've talked to a lot of S-3 owners, they seem to be happy with it and don't want to jump into something more "demanding" to fly. Not everybody can afford several top of the line suits so anything new will have to be just as easy as their old S-3 to fly while at the same time giving a great deal more in performance, why bother to change if the improvement is only marginal. I know you know a couple of things about the next step forward. Question is how much of a step forward is it? Is it worth the change? Time will tell what you already know.

I agree completely that the most important variable is a pilot, however a suit puts a limit on how far a pilot can push it. Consequently a good pilot will try to choose the best suit, and a vast majority of good pilots fly S3 Yuri. I have an M-2 an S-3 and a pre production prototype S-3. While its absolutely the pilot that is the biggest variable in wingsuit performance some suits have more range to offer. The M-2 design is just about a year old and I maintained that it would take some flyers a little time to dial in its sweet spot. I hear that some very good flyers are starting to tap its potential. In my opinion the S-3 has a faster flatter glide than the M-2. The M-2 may be more like a GTI or fill in the gap between GTI and S-3. Its very easy to fly. But my comparison is just using me as the variable , I have over 200 S-3 jumps and only about 50 on the M-2, I'm more in tune with the way the bird-man suits fly than the matter suit, the matter in many ways is still new to me. But things may change if I spend more time with the Matter. I like them both. If fast and flat is what you want then the answers to your questions are above but remember that this may not be the best flying style for everybody. Some people wish they had the GTI instead of an S-3 because its more flyer friendly than the S-3 and plays better with the other flockers they jump with. I say there is no reason you can't have more than one and use them when the situation calls. I just watched a video of a suger glider getting 90 seconds from 3000 feet. Now the people that love fast and flat will say it was a lowsy glide ratio and he didn't cover much forward distance but come on that was a cool slow ride down the mountain. Look for suits based on this design to be safely landed first

What I like to do if its out of an otter is both stand outside facing forward the rider has left hand on the birds riser cover area of the rig harness, right hand on the bar ( which transitions to a matching harness hold on the step-off). The bird has right hand on the bar. Bodies are as close together as possible. On the count both just step off into a stand. They both turn from vertical to horizontal transitioning off the hill almost automatically. During this time the rider has the option to stay close and low in a tuck, sit up and enjoy the view, get brave and attempt a stand-surfer like ( hard to do behind someones burble ). On tailgates its even easier as the rider gets to use both hands to hold the birds harness. You want to have the rider stand as close to the edge as possible bodies again as close as possible. On the count both need to jump up and back far enough to maintain a slight head forward stance as you don't want to be pulled back into a back flip with the momentum from the jump to the rear. And you don't want to smash your face on the threshold of the tailgate form too much forward stance. For face to face freefly rodeos out of otters its hard for the front (rear facing) pair unless they are skilled at getting their legs up on exit (as in whatever they call that front position in RW) Oh-oh I hope I can get away with a comment like that in this forum. * the word horse maybe substituted for the word bird if there are no birds in your rodeos. We have had more success than not using these methods. We even had success using both methods for double rodeos. I hope this helps but I bet you guys are up to speed on the above methods already and are looking for something else. Glen

Thanks for the pictures Lou.

(someone else said) >Can you explain how one would be considered more high performance than the other? There are many ways. A more steeply trimmed canopy will land better but will not glide as far; many swooping canopies have such a characteristic. A longer recovery arc means you can start the swoop higher and hold more speed for landing. A line geometry change can reduce front-riser pressure which can help with front riser turns, and can also affect rear-riser flare characteristics (these are often used to plane out for long distances.) A cathedraling change (via line length) can affect stability, openings and glide distance. There are a great many variables. In _general_ a high performance canopy (as the term is commonly used) is a canopy that flies efficiently when heavily loaded, has a long recovery arc, and has a good flare stroke. That was me I just wanted his take on what makes one hi-per and the other not so much. I know about what you are saying Bill. I'm just curious as to what others ( or he ) considers hi-performance. I know similar sized and wing loaded canopies fly about the same static speed when they are trimmed the same. I have seen X- braced canopies that are designed with a steeper line trim float along and play with more docile canopies and get great glide ratio when the pilot hangs in rears and minimizes drag, effectivly matching the descent angle and airspeed of non-diving canopies. I gets confusing to watch a pro swooper perform an excellent swoop on what is considered an entry level "tapered" canopy at a moderate wing loading. But it is the pilot who absolutely knows how to manage the stored energy and precisely release it to get that perfect swoop despite that canopies short comings in the swoop environment. I understand that canopies with long recovery arcs are considered hi-performance ( and generally better to use for swooping) than canopies with short recovery arcs, even though a good pilot can still manage a great swoop on these if they have the skill. Ridiculously fast turns generally aren't so much thought of as hi- performance canopy characteristics any more. Soft smooth on heading openings are charactersitics that almost everybody wants in every canopy ( with the exception of reserves and CReW canopies) regardless of its intended market pro or beginner. Just about every body wants plenty of slow flight and bottom flare. Wingloading plays a very important aspect in how a canopy behaves. So what do you guys consider high performance?

kevin can you post some pictures of the Jim Wallace smoke rack when you get a chance? Thanks.

offset geared hubs (like an H1 or Unimog) - This design is called portals.

Can you explain how one would be considered more high performance than the other? Like you said its not just based on turn speed. So what is it, I'm curious, that makes one more hi-perf. More nuetral static flight airspeed? Trimmed for higher rate of descent? Better flare at slower flight? I think they are marketed to the same skydiver demographic.

Omar and JeffPro's video Cutaway. Next question.

very good beer, not so good mexican food. One of the highest per capita violence against women ( but not by me this time ) towns. Is the coin operated 24 hour church of elvis still in operation? Thats fun when yer drunk.

The mylar isn't so stiff , it is flexible.

Marke did Brian bring you back sumpthing from the burning man festival?

Luigi has been playing around with wingsuit relative canopy flying for least almost a year. Shortly before the VX-39 arrived he was tuning his skills on the VX-46 and some of the wingsuit guys he trusted to be in the air with him. After a few days of initial test flights on the 39 Luigi, and other members of team extreme along with Tim Rigby and Jeb Corless got together for some "real" wingsuit ~canopy relative flying.They took time with canopy trim changes and adjusting weights for Luigi. I believe that they got some video and had a few docks. Fast forward to now and I think the plan is to use one of those jumbotron camera equiped copters to get "spectacular" footage instead of relying on outside flyer helmet mounted video. It is hard to stay with the trio because of their skill as wingsuit pilots and the fact that Rigby and Corless were using S-4s. Even good S-3 flyers with the burden of a flat top pro tend to sink out. So you end up with a few seconds of nice video but nothing on the scale of spectacular. I would be there now if I wasn't spectacularly stuck at work.

I know what you are talking about. Its just that I have a lot of video in my collection featuring jumpers who thought they were doing their level best to stay symetrical during the deployment when actually they had quite a side skid going on. We video most first flights and low timers that jump with us ( and experienced jumpers that insist on jumping canopies not recommended for wingsuits ). It becomes evident on the PC snatch they were not even near. By contrast deployments are much more rewarding to new jumpers when they are rock solid stable. The proof is in the video. Just like Lou said " don't make things harder than they need to be". I couldn't agree more with him on this. Once the jumper has some experience ( and doesn't pull a full fifteen seconds before us ) its a personal event based on their confort and needs and we have no video for reasons of separation. Glen

I was flying relative with Russ's canopy for a very long time from about 9000'. I could stay with it with simple harness turns. I was close enough to put my toes on it 30 times in the ten minute flight. I thought long and hard about where it ( we) were going to get land as we traversed neiborhoods, electrical substations, busy intersections and rocky hilly out cropings. The only thing keeping me from a perfect snatch and easy arrival at the DZ was the fact that ,with Nathan passing just the week before, we were briefed not to and I'm sure I would have got more than an a simple ass chewing for it Glen.