X-fire2 prefered wingloading?

[AggieDave 6]

According to the website, 1.4-2.2 is recommended. A few folks I've talked to said 1.6-1.9 is really good, a couple others were saying that beyond 1.6 you'll loose distance.

Opinions?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Yoshi 0]

When speaking with the manufacturer I was told that 1.85 is the optimum wing load for the cf2. I have jumped them at 1.6 to 2.0 and mine at 1.82 seems to be optimum for me.

-yoshi

_________________________________________
this space for rent.

[sdctlc 0]

I have found, with a non-cross braced canopy, a good upper end of load that produces a good deal of speed and distance but also gives good flare at the bottom end is around 1.8. I put about 1000 jumps on a canopy loaded at 1.8. Of those jumps a number were also on a canopy the next size down with a load at a little over 2 . When looking at the way the canopys performed I could consistently get better landings with the 1.8 load. Speed was better with the smaller canopy but the lift produced by the airfoil at the end of the swoop was better at the 1.8 load which gave better landings.

Just my $0.02

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[andy2 0]

can someone explain to me how there can be a blanket statement for the optimum WL of a canopy? How does a 100 pound girl and a 250 pound guy jump the same WL? Isn't performance going to be radically different, or am I missing something?

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[AggieDave 6]

Overall performance, yes, but the power of the flare would be the same, since that' not really effected by the difference in line length/drag of the canopy like turn radiuses/speed in turns/altitude lost in turns/etc.


Oh, if that statement is wrong, please correct and give examples so I can unlearn something.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[andy2 0]

how is riser pressure/toggle sensitivity different on small/big canopies of the same WL for different people (did that make sense?)?

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Yoshi 0]

but that is exactly what it is is a blanket statement, not something to hold true to. I dont think what icarus was saying is that the exact wingload for every weight person with all different body shapes is 1.85.... I think what they were saying is in a genral blanket statement that the optimum performance can be reached with that WL.

-yoshi

_________________________________________
this space for rent.

[rhino 0]

1.85 is the ABSOLUTE sweetspot on that canopy..

I am at 1.95 after gaining 10lbs at the gym this winter. It is still fantastic. Glide is excellent, Recovery arc is excellent, bottom end is great,

Rhino

[AggieDave 6]

I want to downsize next season and I needed an in-between canopy before I went crossbraced (and since I'd be loading over 2.0 on a 120, the largest x-braced out there).

So, I was looking at the Xfire2.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rigging65 0]

Quote

...over 2.0 on a 120, the largest x-braced out there

120 is not the largest X-braced canopy out there. I have a 135 Xaos (loaded about 2.1) and it's the sweetest thing I've ever flown. Precision will build them in any size you want, and they all open great...I didn't believe it when Beezey told me he wanted to build me one, but I took his word for it and I've never regretted it.

Some Mfgs. don't want to build X-braced over 120, mostly because their openings are really crappy. The Xaos does not have this problem.

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[AggieDave 6]

Ok, so I was wrong in that point, but either way, even with a slightly larger x-braced canopy, I'm not ready for a x-braced canopy.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Yoshi 0]

I will swear by the cf2 it awesome canopy!
-YOSHI

_________________________________________
this space for rent.

[skygod7777 0]

for the most distance and all that stuff (performance, flare and all) i would say about 1.8 or 1.9. now, you will get great performance down to 1.5 or so and all the way up to about 2.3. i have jumped one at 2.2 (89) and still had a lot of flare at the end. i would be comfortable jumping one at a much higher wing loading. but i wouldn't go over 2.2 or under 1.5, other wise you mine as well go xbraced or to a lower performance canopy.

later

[Professor 0]

Quote

Overall performance, yes, but the power of the flare would be the same, since that' not really effected by the difference in line length/drag of the canopy like turn radiuses/speed in turns/altitude lost in turns/etc.


Oh, if that statement is wrong, please correct and give examples so I can unlearn something.

I talked to Brian Germain a while ago, when I was trying to get a Samurai demo, and he said that it seemed to him that a larger canopy at the same wing loading would swoop a little better. Also, I think that swoop specific canopies have longer line sets because it makes for better swoop.

Ted
Like a giddy school girl.

[Yoshi 0]

Quote

Also, I think that swoop specific canopies have longer line sets because it makes for better swoop.

correct me if I am wrong but the line length wouldnt make it "swoop" better, but dive longer and give it more speed as the pendulum effect (swinging back under the canopy) would take a bit longer hence making it dive a little more.

-yoshi

_________________________________________
this space for rent.

[fundgh 0]

What is the difference in flight of x-braced canopy? Why are you able to fly such high wing loading, yet not ready for x-brace? Why don't they make x-braced canopies at larger sizes (or lower wingloading)?

...FUN FOR ALL!

[Professor 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, I think that swoop specific canopies have longer line sets because it makes for better swoops.

correct me if I am wrong but the line length wouldnt make it "swoop" better, but dive longer and give it more speed as the pendulum effect (swinging back under the canopy) would take a bit longer hence making it dive a little more.

-yoshi

Pendulum, exactly. There was a pretty good article about this in parachutist a while ago, unforunately I don't have that issue. The lines on larger canopies are longer, as well, though, so this could be playing a part in the behaviour Germain was describing.

Quote

What is the difference in flight of x-braced canopy? Why are you able to fly such high wing loading, yet not ready for x-brace? Why don't they make x-braced canopies at larger sizes (or lower wingloading)?

Cross braces keep the wing from distorting as much, making it more efficient. The benefit is lost at lower wingloads, so making large ones is pointless, since there are so few 260+ lbs people out there looking to run out super high speed landings.

Ted
Like a giddy school girl.

[Professor 0]

Quote

What is the difference in flight of x-braced canopy?

check this out. A discription of the advantages of cross braces.

Ted
Like a giddy school girl.

[ManBird 0]

There is in existence a Xaos-21 150.

"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯"

Click

[johnny1488 1]

Quote

or under 1.5, other wise you mine as well go...to a lower performance canopy.

I jump a cf2 169 loaded about 1.4 It definetly higher performance than my safire2 169 but it definetly wants to be loaded more. I was actually kind of bored with the speed of my safire2 169 after 30 or so jumps. For now I am just puting the xfire2 through the ringers. I'm gonna need a new rig when I downsize so when I decide im ready ill have the additional wait to get "more" ready.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[johnny1488 1]

I've also heard of someone jumping an extreme 169 (not sure fx or vx)

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[skygod7777 0]

Quote

I jump a cf2 169 loaded about 1.4 It definetly higher performance than my safire2 169 but it definetly wants to be loaded more. I was actually kind of bored with the speed of my safire2 169 after 30 or so jumps. For now I am just puting the xfire2 through the ringers. I'm gonna need a new rig when I downsize so when I decide im ready ill have the additional wait to get "more" ready.

i didn't say you wouldn't get more performance, but you could get about the same performance under a different type of canopy with a bit of "room for error" i guess you could say. and like you said, it is just begging to be loaded more.


later

[johnny1488 1]

The room for error was what I was looking to get away from. I wanted the harder dives and longer recover arc of the xf2. The auto-flare of my safire2 was starting to get to me. I dont like turning low and having to set up over the landing area that low. You're right though the performance difference probably isnt worth it for most people at that loading.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[sarge 0]

Well Dave, my Cf2 is 1.6; therefore an opion from the light side. I enjoy all its flight characteristics (including openings) over any other canopy I've flown in the HP class under similar wingloads. I've got 20lbs that I have yet to strap on. That will put me close to 1.8 (I'll let you know with my comparison) .

As it is for me, the flares are very positive even when coming in with the brakes on with low/no headwind. Carves are clean from harness to toggle. Stalls are comfortably predictable with rears and toggles. I find it to be a very versatile HP canopy.

My only complaint, which I'm still investigating, is gusty crosswinds and turbulance. My suspicion is that a heavier loading would mitigate these more demanding landings. So in that regard I'm still working on getting acquainted with this canopy under these various conditions at this wingload for the time being.

BTW, My intention is as yours sounds like about having this be a transitional canopy. I opted out of a Velocity for similar reasons. I sure am happy I made that decision. Best bang for the buck of any non-x in the whole industry IMO. Very good investment +++++ (five stars.)

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[andy2 0]

[QUOTE]My only complaint, which I'm still investigating, is gusty crosswinds and turbulance. [/QUOTE]

I thought a smaller canopy of the same design will suffer from turbulence at a greater degree than the same canopy in a larger size?

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...