cloud9

Hey guys I posted this in discussions and didn't get much reply especially from cross braced canopy flyers. Ok I don’t know if I’m misinformed or if many others are. But here’s the deal; I keep hearing folks talking about canopies like the Stiletto, Crossfire2, Nitron, Cobalt well you get the picture. Now where the confusion comes in is this. I hear it said all the time they are just under the Xbrace performace or a transition canopy to Xbrace. Or it’s ok to fly an elliptical canopy but you’re not ready for a Xbrace yet. At the same wing loading like say a 1.6 what would make the Xbrace canopy any higher performance then say a Crossfire2? The only reason I can see that a cross-braced canopy is a higher performance is because you can load it heavier. I don’t think an FX 119 at a 1.6 wing loading would turn any faster, dive any longer be any more dangerous or perform any better then a Crossfire2 119 with the same wing loading. In fact it may be more forgiving. But I don’t have any experience either, so if I’m wrong would someone please tell me how the cross bracing makes a canopy more high performance except that it can be loaded heavier. I’ve heard it said that until you load a cross brace canopy you wouldn’t see any improvement over a non-Xbraced. In fact it seems to me that many times at lower wing loadings a Xbraced canopy would be more docile then a non-xbraced elliptical. Any thoughts on this? Is my thinking flawed? I'm thinking that at a lower wing loading a cross braced canopy would be more rigid therefore you would be landing more sq ft then under a non-xbraced.

I haven't seen any confusion, everyone seems to know the difference and everyone seems to know that the Crossfire is not cross-braced. There have been one or two that have said the design is more aggressive but not what makes it so. There have been others that have said it dives longer and has a greater recovery arc but again not why. Some have said it will swoop farther but I have already conceded that, by saying it can be loaded heavier. Of course I ment that it's more rigid under a load so that's a given. Someone did mention the cord which I didn't think about and that makes some sense as to more speed, but then agian all those closed cells could create more drag.(don't really know) I'm still thinking that a cross-braced canopy at a lighter wing loading would be more forgiving then a non cross-braced elliptical like the Nitron vs Xoas 21. When I say lightly on Xbrace I mean 1.6 and under range. This is very interesting any more thoughts?

Just for information I have no desire at all to go to a cross braced canopy or make any changes in what I'm jumping now. I'm just trying to put information out there and see what information I get back. I think there is a lot of misconception about canopy designs. It could be on my part or others so lets see. But I can see this thread helping many others if we get good respones from experienced folks like we have already seen. Thanks everyone for responding.

Well I won't get into the merits of downsizing I'll let you decide that. Now to answer your question if you were loading your 210 at a 1.52 and you go to a 170 loaded at about 1.25 you shouldn't have any problems. Provided you were doing ok with the other canopy. I would think you would be better off under a 170 loaded at 1.25 then on a 210 loaded at 1.5 of course you would also be safer under the 210 loaded at 1.1 but that's your choice I did something similar I was jumping a 175 loaded at about 1.23 I then lost some weight and downsized to a 150 loaded at about the same and had no problems at all with the canopy it did seem a little more responsive but not much.

From Big Air web site: Keep in mind, however, that the slightly shaped planform utilized in the Lotus is absolutely minimal. The Lotus is, for all intents and purposes a rectangular planform, with a little shape to omit wrinkles and reduce the toggle pressure

Ok I don’t know if I’m misinformed or if many others are. But here’s the deal; I keep hearing folks talking about canopies like the Stiletto, Crossfire2, Nitron, Cobalt well you get the picture. Now where the confusion comes in is this. I hear it said all the time they are just under the Xbrace performace or a transition canopy to Xbrace. Or it’s ok to fly an elliptical canopy but you’re not ready for a Xbrace yet. At the same wing loading like say a 1.6 what would make the Xbrace canopy any higher performance then say a Crossfire2? The only reason I can see that a cross-braced canopy is a higher performance is because you can load it heavier. I don’t think an FX 119 at a 1.6 wing loading would turn any faster, dive any longer be any more dangerous or perform any better then a Crossfire2 119 with the same wing loading. In fact it may be more forgiving. But I don’t have any experience on either, so if I’m wrong would someone please tell me how the cross bracing makes a canopy more high performance except that it can be loaded heavier. I’ve heard it said that until you load a cross brace canopy you wouldn’t see any improvement over a non-Xbraced. In fact it seems to me that many times at lower wing loadings a Xbraced canopy would be more docile then a non-xbraced elliptical. Any thoughts on this? Is my thinking flawed? I guess I’m just sitting at work on a Saturday and can’t jump so it makes for some strange thinking.

Actually there are a couple of easy methods of curing your problem. The easiest of course is get some bi-focal. Look through the bottom when looking at the altimeter and look through the top when landing. A second and fairly simple fix might be to look in Scuba diving shops. They sell a small lens that sticks to the glass on a face mask. You can place it anywhere on the mask that you like. It would work just as well on a pair of goggles. It's inexpensive and comes in a variety of corrections. Good luck with your search.

I actually did the same thing, 25 yr layoff started back in 2001. It really is amazing the changes made in gear. However I can say without a doubt the new canopies are capable of opening 10 times harder then a PC ever could. So you really do need to be mindful of packing and of what canopy you choose. Even the most docile of new canopies can open very hard. Of course they also for the most part open much softer, so like I said you just need to be mindful of canopy choice and packing. You will find that flying and landing the new designs are fantastic with no comparison to a PC, so much better. So like Nike said just do it! You absolutely will not regret it. But be open minded because a lot has changed. The newer jumpers fly so much better, with so fewer jumps. The canopies are so much faster, and so much more controllable. The jump planes are way faster and hold more jumpers, the deployment methods have changed. The harness/containers are way different, the AAD or you may remember them as AO are so much better and way more prevalent. It’s just a much improved sport. Go for it.

The best I've heard. Words to live by on any jump!

Ok guys lets get serious for a moment. I’m against any new regs but by all means for safety in our sport. I can’t argue against life saving regs. Since I don’t think I’m alone, how about we try this. When we sign log books we read what was written, we make student and low time jumpers really do the requirements for their license. Including landing within the parameters of their perspective license rating. I think we would find that they wouldn’t be able to downsize; and if they could then they probably would be ok under that canopy. Now lets get real for a second, very few drop zones and very few students really meet the requirements for their respective licenses. Water jumps, landing within a parameter, RW skills night jumps all or some of these are fudged on many I say again many license applications. Also DZ’s are going to have to at least make an effort. I have been to 4 drop zones this year (2003) and not one asked me my wing loading, or what kind of main I was jumping. Now perhaps in their defense they figure if you have a D you can jump anything you want, but hey that wouldn’t fit in the wing loading BSR would it. So as you can see this is so much deeper then a new BSR, which is why I’m so against it. As of this date the only thing I see coming from the new proposal is some people will feel better, hey I did what I could. That’s not going to make a difference. As for those of you that care, please keep caring we’re all better for it!

I truly hope no one took my post as a joke. Because everything I wrote I have heard skydivers say on the DZ. Just this weekend I heard a jumper saying after the tragic incident in Chicago all hook turns should be banned period. So who’s right? The folks that would restrict us to no hook turns? That would certainly save lives, but look at what we would loose. If you really think a wing loading BSR is the answer start with your own DZ. If they won’t enforce one the what good would a new regulation do? Many people would just drop the USPA and then what? Jumpers would lie if there was a restriction is someone going to open every container and see what’s being jumped? More importantly it won’t take into account the new technology in the sport. There are canopies out there right now that can and are jumped at 1.2 wing loading for novice jumpers. Also it’s like the elliptical issue Dan Preston was right here for well over a year trying to educate people on the subject but for the most part he was ridiculed. Now Aerodyne in saying the same thing amazing isn’t it. Some of the more docile canopies are more elliptical then some of the pocket rockets. And there is no such thing as semi elliptical, or slightly tapered that’s what all elliptical are there are no full elliptical canopies. But manufacturers have to make stuff up because of the perceptions of some instructors and that gets passed on, then we have a new generation of misinformed people. I will say I have nothing but respect for the people concerned with saving lives in our sport. I just can’t agree that putting words on paper will change anything at all in that respect. But it will change jumpers opinions of the USPA and not for the better.

she's beautiful! I remember when mine was that young, enjoy those precious moments they are gone so quickly! Not that you can't enjoy them in later years but there something so special when they're that young.

Well I must confess I didn't think you all could change my mind on regulation but you have. Now lets not stop with wing loading there is still work to do. I think the BSR should also decree that anyone with less then 500 jumps should not be able to go head down. We have had several fatalities do to FF collisions that could be avoided. Maybe 200 belly jumps before any FF jumps. Also how about 250 jumps before anything bigger then an 8 way RW and 500 before anything bigger then a 20 way. At least 100 jumps before any hoop dives or raft dives. 500 jumps before any boogies, them landing area's get crowded. 500 jumps on a square, then another 200 on a semi elliptical before going to a high performance main. Mandatory AAD no doubt would save lives. RSL same same. No more mini risers to dangerous. Mandatory full face helmets couldn't hurt. Mandatory audible. No jumping below 32 degree's hands just get to cold them big gloves are to bulky. Bright canopies only to avoid canopy collisions. Boots would save some of the foot injuries. So where do you draw the line? Where does it end? More importantly who decides?

While all the above advice is excellent, I would hope that the experienced jumpers on your DZ would be willing in fact eager to make some jumps with you and help you along. Let them know you have an interest in RW and that you would love to join in on some jumps. I'm sure they would work you in. Now don't expect to get in on all of their jumps, but certainly some. If not find another DZ to jump at!

Nope I needed to send pictures of the damage and I couldn't do that by phone. When I hear back from Sunshine Rigging I will post information about the damage and what they said. That way other Wings owners can check their rigs or will know its not been a real problem.

Well I did recieve an email today from Paige it appears she read this post. As far as taking it personal, when anyone accuses me of slamming a person in a public forum, and I didn't then I take it personal. My post had nothing to do with slamming anyone. It was more of a compliment to one person then a slam to anyone else. Also it was intended to imply that customer service often times is not the manufacturer per se but can simply be the results of a single person. ( Good or bad ).

First and foremost I could not possibly slam an individual as I had no name in order to slam someone. Second When I received good customer service I stated so right here in these forums. When I feel I have received bad service I will state that right here in these forums as well. The email address was and is correct, I have used it before and it came directly from the web site and the information I received with my container when I purchased it. However I was trying to give Sunrise the opportunity to return an email. As of yet they have not How do you know whether I called them or not? Just because I didn’t put it here?. I really don’t care who knows the person or persons involved in customer service. It doesn’t change anything, facts are facts. I make no apologies for posting here nor do I feel any obligation to do so. By the way this was in reference to the binding tape on my pilot chute tearing off after only 71 jumps. Something to keep an eye on if you own a Wings. I don’t know if it was just mine or if there have been problems and wanted an answer in writing from Sunrise so I could post the information here without speculation.

Well I don't know what the outcome was/is but there have been several just in the last couple of years. The crossfire comes to mind, there were several injuries and at least one death. I'm not going to blame the canopy but they did recall (or ground them) and changes were made to the canopy! Then there were the Raven reserves that came apart, they were also recalled (or grounded) and changes had to be made. I can't remember if anyone was killed but there were definitely some serious injuries. So it can and does happen .

1. There is no way reaching back and behind to get as much pull force as a PC can generate. So hard pin pull reserve ride, with throw out wouldn't even know. 2. Floating pud almost always a reserve ride. 3. If floating pud is caught and you jump an elliptical canopy, line twist and possibly a reserve ride. It's very hard to be square and searching desperately for a pud 4. Seems to be to be a lot more chances of a reserve ride to eliminate a horse shoe which is rare.

I have a wings container and have bragged in the past about their great customer service. But you know I have found what a difference a person makes. In the past an email was answered with in a day, I have recently sent two emails and no answer ( its been almost two weeks on the first and a week on the second.) Not so great, not even good, not even so, so. So was it sunshine rigging with great customer service or was it Heather that was great with customers? I say it was Heather! So to those that have not got the best of customer service from some of the manufacturers it may not be them but just the person handling the email, phones, customers. . .

Bill these kind of statments don't help your cause at all. First off its the DZO's responsibility to insure that all new jumpers are trained properly before they make the first jump. Second no one new or other wise that has made jumps and is off student status, is not familiar with wing loading at least to a degree and the pearls of jumping a smaller canopy. They do not do it out of ignorance they do it from choice, big difference. Also last year 54 percent of fatalities were D license holders and the average jump numbers were over 1000 that comes straight from page 35 of the April parachutist. So while landings were the leading cause it's not low time jumpers that lead the way. Oh the mean jump number was 521. So most of the proposed rules wouldn't have changed very much. Unless of course you all want to make rule changes on jumpers with over 1000 jumps. . .

Hey Paula we're doing beach jumps at Galveston this weekend maybe you could just land in the soft sand or hey I know you could borrow a rig and just land in the water (don't want to get salt water on your own rig) Drink hard, heel fast! . .

Well there has now been a few post with some injuries, however still some of them years ago not in the last year. And how many experienced jumpers were injured in the same time frame. As far as the figure of an average 1000 jumps it came out of parachutist magazine but I'm at work and don't have my old copy here. I agree that low timers shouldn't be jumping high wing loadings I just see no reason on earth to regulate it when the DZ should do that and there really isn't much of a problem. I was reading a 1985 parachutist the other day and the letters in it were the same people being killed under good canopies the majority of folks wanted to ban hook turns. Now aren't you glad they didn't? Another surprise a lot of the gear in 1985 was more expensive then today.

Not one statment made so far supports a need for regulation. Facts, Facts, Facts will support it if its needed. How ever the facts so far show there is not a problem. I have yet to see even one person post about a low timer on a highly loaded canopy frapping in. If it aint broke don't fix it. As far as USPA saying that someone with 100 jumps is experienced maybe so. But the facts are last year the average jump number for a landing fatality was over 1000 jumps! Most of the low timers being injured and killed under canopy are not loading very heavy, most are under a 1.2

Sorry Kris but I just see you feeding the frenzy. Lets not go with anything but real facts and then see how the chips fall. I'm not promoting high wing loadings for low timer, I would just love to see the truth out there. The USPA has already said most landing injuries were experienced jumpers last year. What is the real world drop zones showing. . .