diablopilot 2 #26 October 7, 2003 Thanks for your input, but I'm trying to find out from Atair, what basis they have for recommended higher wingloadings on their brand of canopies for lower time jumpers, based solely on what size canopy they are currently jumping, rather than their experience. My theory is they have none, and they are banking on making a sale based on the "cool" factor of downsizing. I have not been successful in obtaining an answer. The performance of the canopy is irrelevant to this question, unless Atair can prove that one of their canopies at a higher wingloading than a competitors product has less responsiveness to control input than another brand of canopy one standard size bigger. Doubtful considering Atair's claims regarding performance.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #27 October 7, 2003 not trying to start anything but I've heard of other canopy manufacturer's besides ATAIR now doing this saying, "oh youre flying a (insert your canopy size here), you need to fly a (insert one size smaller here) to get a real feel for our canopy". Whether they say it "flies big", or it will "fly better at this WL" is a bit of a marketing scam, no? It seems like they want you to fly the smaller canopy so that when it comes time to dish out your money you'll think of their canopy as the "sportier" one. I don't know how much this affects the serious buyer as I dont think they would be fooled too easily by this somewhat shallow marketing trick. If you're going to demo why not demo the EXACT same size canopy youre flying now. Otherwise whats your point of reference!?!? On the other hand, Im still curious to see what the manufacturer's say the reasoning behind suggesting a higher WLed canopy as demos is. I'll hope my "hunch" is wrong. --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kansasskydiver 0 #28 October 8, 2003 i disagree with that statement. we have a jumper at our dz with 200plus jumps flying a sabre 170 and pd wouldn't send him a stilleto 150 that he'd load at 1.2 from atair, i spoke with him and we came to the conclusion that for what i'm looking for a 150 would be the best. i plan on buying a 150 anyways, loading around 1.7 (i'm a big guy) they weren't trying to push anything on me. Again, Atair was very friendly with me, called me back on my lunch hour as asked and shipped the canopy on a momment notice. The canopy has great performance aspects, just didn't get the openings i was expecting or that i thought would be safe doing tandem videos with a topmount trv chris<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #29 October 8, 2003 Quote Does this mean that, essentially, the Cobalt is a more "efficient" wing? I am hesitant to use the word efficient, but that seems to be what you are suggesting (?). From my understanding this is because the canopy is not trimmed as steep as most canopies and glides further and loses less altitude than another canopy of the same size. This also contributes to atair recommending the cobalt be loaded at 1.2 for novices. Under that wingloading I have personally seen this canopy fold in half on a no wind day 20 feet of the ground before any toggle input was given. The cobalt 170 was shipped as a demo with atair knowing of the planned wingloading. After the stability concerns were brought up to atair, they informed the jumper (140 lbs with under 200 jumps) they should be jumping a 135. This was unacceptable to the jumper. On a side note the light riser pressure the jumper raved about was because of the unsafe light wingloading. On other cobalts on the dz jumpers loading over 1.2 have said the riser pressure got much heavier. Paints a good picture of the internal pressurization of the canopy at that loading. This is all just my opinion on things I have witnessed involving the cobalt. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #30 October 8, 2003 Quote On other cobalts on the dz jumpers loading over 1.2 have said the riser pressure got much heavier. I put a bunch of jumps on a 170 at 1.5ish a few years ago. I thought that the riser pressure was very light and easy to manage, even at that size canopy and wing loading. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #31 October 8, 2003 Im sure its all relative. The jumper in question was a girl who had expierenced diffuculty in holding down the front risers on other canopies. She was able to hold down the front risers indefinetly. No one I have talked to who jumps a cobalt was able to hold the front risers down indefinetly. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #32 October 8, 2003 [QUOTE]i disagree with that statement. we have a jumper at our dz with 200plus jumps flying a sabre 170 and pd wouldn't send him a stilleto 150 that he'd load at 1.2 from atair, i spoke with him and we came to the conclusion that for what i'm looking for a 150 would be the best. i plan on buying a 150 anyways, loading around 1.7 (i'm a big guy) they weren't trying to push anything on me. Again, Atair was very friendly with me, called me back on my lunch hour as asked and shipped the canopy on a momment notice. The canopy has great performance aspects, just didn't get the openings i was expecting or that i thought would be safe doing tandem videos with a topmount trv [/QUOTE] Again I emphasize I am not trying to start shit on any manufacturer, thats why I did not single any out. I have just heard a few things that lead me to believe some type of marketing device was being employed. Not unbelievable when you consider these companies are making canopies to make money. I just wondered if anyone else had heard about this type of thing? again, I am not saying anything bad about any manufacturer, just trying to ask what you guys have heard/experienced about this type of thing. --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #33 October 8, 2003 Roq, please tel us about your Roq-mod. How is in design and performance? Is it just an H-mod that you came up with, or is it different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #34 October 8, 2003 Quotenot trying to start anything but I've heard of other canopy manufacturer's besides ATAIR now doing this saying, "oh youre flying a (insert your canopy size here), you need to fly a (insert one size smaller here) to get a real feel for our canopy". Whether they say it "flies big", or it will "fly better at this WL" is a bit of a marketing scam, no? It seems like they want you to fly the smaller canopy so that when it comes time to dish out your money you'll think of their canopy as the "sportier" one. Quote Yes this happened to me personnaly with icarus at WFFC. I fly a cobalt 120 so I should demo an X-fire 105. The rep was insistant but I was insistant to try the same size then one smaller, maybe even one bigger. I was comparing as friends of mine who have also compared these two and love their X-fires and state that I should try it and see if I like it. Before I got my cobalt I had flown six different canopies in three different sizes. Demo Demo and Demo again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites roq 0 #35 October 8, 2003 basically my roq-mod is similar to h-mod but with the nose more closed. The triangles a little larger than h-mod are sewn close the bottom skin of the leeding edge. Half triangles also exist in the last two cell. The very soft openings need a small slider and the performance is basically the same to the h-mod that I also tested in a copy that I applied in my canopy for test. See pict in attach, sorry for bad pict quality Roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cobaltdan 0 #36 October 9, 2003 we are not banking on any 'cool' factor. simply: this has to do with 2 factors. one the way we measure sq footage and two the efficiency of the wing. some other manufacturers if they create a more efficient wing simply adjust their sq' footage measurement so that people will be jumping apples to apples performance wise when comparing canopies. we always use the same measurement method. we do not add to the actual footage when quoting to skew for efficiency. we simple change our recommended wing loading. i.e. safires were more efficient than sabers. a 169 safire is considerably smaller than a 170 saber. the 169 is not a 169 but they chose to call it so. our 170 is actually a 170 and we call it a 170 and to compare apples to apples to a saber the cobalt should be slightly heavier loaded. do you understand? i am an engineer not a salesman. i dont believe in skewing data for marketing. btw efficiency is not a flatter trim. it is a better glide at a given wingloading, but not nec. in free flight. skydiving canopies are never trimmed for the best glide in free flight, you have to adjust with your brakes or risers to find that point. more effiecient wings generate more lift. the biggest factor effecting efficiency on a skydiving canopy beyond the airfoil is spanwise airfoil distortion on the top skin. sincerely, daniel preston atair aerodynamics www.extremefly.comDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #37 October 9, 2003 Quotei.e. safires were more efficient than sabers. a 169 safire is considerably smaller than a 170 saber. the 169 is not a 169 but they chose to call it so. our 170 is actually a 170 and we call it a 170 and to compare apples to apples to a saber the cobalt should be slightly heavier loaded. do you understand? I comprehend what you have said. What generation of Safire do you use in your example? The Safire 1's produced in the US were measured by the PIA standard. Later Safires have been reported as being measured by the same method PD uses. What method do you use to measure your canopies? I am still looking for a definition of "fly's big" Do you accept that a heavier loading on one of your canopies will increase the responsiveness due to increased airspeed (among other factors)?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hookitt 1 #38 October 9, 2003 I'm sure you understand what he means by "flies big" an example would be 120 feels like a 135. ... Leave that one alone. I flew a 65, it looked small and it "Felt" much larger. Carry on.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #39 October 9, 2003 He's just wanting "it flies big" quantified, with actual examples of why and how. Atleast that's what I think he wants, I haven't been keeping up with the thread.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #40 October 10, 2003 I think my post got lost in the other thread and I was hoping for a response; Dan, your profile indicates you jump at the "RANCH" and use an "atair reserve 110 ft²". According to TSO Holders (TSO 23d) , Atair does not hold TSO C23d Authorization. This tells me 2 things, 1) Atair does make a reserve canopy, and 2) you are illegally jumping a non-TSO'd reserve canopy in the U.S. Is this correct? Refering to the Cobalt, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it is tested far in excess of tso requirements. it greatly exceeds requirements to be certified as a reserve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To include?: Being functionally open within 3 seconds from the moment of pack opening? Being functionally open within 300 feet from the altitude at pack opening? Being functionally open within 2 seconds of breaking away from another canopy descending at less than 20 FPS? All 70 drop tests? What is the Cobalt 65's rate of descent with 182 lbs. suspended weight (a 2.8:1 wingloading)? Not higher than 24 FPS? Below a total velocity of 36 FPS? [deployment configuration, i.e. brakes stowed] 2 drops of a free fall of at least 20 seconds where the user must suffer no significant discomfort from the opening shock and must be able to disengage himself unaided from the harness after landing? Some Cobalt owners have posted that their Cobalt opens unacceptably hard, even following all of Atair's recommendations. Some Cobalt owners have posted that their Cobalt opens very nicely, all the time. I would conclude that nicely opening Cobalts are hit or miss. Some do, some don't. Atair has made some outrageous claims on this forum in the past, claims they could not back up. Anyone considering purchasing a new canopy should understand that manufactures will try to paint the best possible picture of their product and are in the business of making money. Some manufacturers are more reputable than others. Research any gear purchase thoroughly, to include test jumping a product you are considering. A little history; Atair has posted: "something to consider that most people do not realize is that the first shock you feel when deploying a canopy is at line stretch before your canopy is out of the bag. this shock is caused by the pilot chute, not the canopy. if this defination is acceptable as line dump i have quite alot of proof as to it happening both video and datalogged jumps. as the opening sequence is a series of fast shocks a jumper is usually incorect when recounting what happened in the analysis of a jump. i.e. 10 different pilots, 10 jumps, same single canopy, and you will get 10+ different accounts of how it opened. probably none of which match the recorded datalogged sensor data. the most dramatic recorded instance of the above was 29g's at line stretch and then 6.4g peak once the canopy came out of the bag. improperly sized pilots especially at higer speeds can definately rock you harder than you canopy. " Only later, after being questioned, is it explained: "1000# exit weight, 350 sq' main, vector tandem rig, 184mph speed at deployment. scrunchie failed to collapse drogue, line stretch generated 29g's, canopy upon exiting bag generated a max of 6.4 g's stage 1, about 3.5 g's stage 2. " It was not a normal sport rig, but a tandem at high speed with a drogue that failed to collapse. The data used to back up that statement doesn't apply to normal sport rigs. In another thread Atair posted: "so yes our student canopy is considerably more elliptical than many canopies you will see in swoop competitions." To which was asked: "Your student canopy, do you mean the Cobalt?" (The largest Cobalt offered is a 170 sq. ft. and a 'student' is defined, in the USA, as a skydiver without a license, generally less than 20 jumps.) To which they replied: "yes i mean the cobalt and previously the space/alpha." "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 clarified later: "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" "Where?" But a Drop Zone where the student equipment included Cobalt 170's (or smaller) was never given. To reply to your post: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as far as an elliptical design being good for begineers and high experience there is absolutely nothing contradictory about that. you are basing that comment on misconceptions of you think being elliptical means. older elliptical designs had certain negative traits that made them only suitable for higher experience. but the reality that the only thing you can assume by knowing a canopy is elliptical is that it is more efficient, absolutely nothing more. wethre it is a pocket rocket or a student canopy are determined by the sum total of many design variables. the cobalt is not prone to spinning mal, is very stable, very efficient (fly's big), high glide, slow foward speed and high flare at light wing loadings it is imo a superior choice to a saber/safire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I notice you have changed you term from 'student' to beginner', progress. "imo", from the salesman, not an Instructor. Many Instructors, including me, have a different opinion of the Cobalt as a beginner's canopy. It is not suitable for beginners. I base that opinion upon of years of Instructing. The characteristics the Cobalt demonstrates are not the characteristics of a good student or beginner canopy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the alpha has a flawless 6year track record with begineers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. It does not have a flawless record with beginners. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the only difference between the space and the alpha : the name and recommended loading. i have pointed this out many times and no one has ever said the space is an unsuitable canopy for begineers but in people still have the knee jerk reaction of thinking an alpha or cobalt could be good for begineers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Space is unsuitable for beginners. (I have jumped one and was surprised at the performance) Derek Think Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TALONSKY 0 #41 October 10, 2003 Hey Derek, I do not think your post got lost. I am sure you have noticed that Atair avoids answering the more direct critical questions. They prefer (at least it seems by their posts) to only address questions they can skirt indirectly around. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TALONSKY 0 #42 October 10, 2003 Hey Dan: I would like to address the sample of the Icarus Safire. In Icarus defense 2 years ago when I contacted them to ask about the Safire, the very first thing they explained to me is that they were sized wrong. In fact about a year ago I e-mail Simon and asked if he would reply to the issues on the Safire so I could post it here. Now reading Simon’s response it sounds more like a sub-contractor issue than a sales scheme that when you call the factory they tell you about up front. Kirk (below is the letter from Simon) The Safire-1 and the Omega are measured differently to PD canopies. As a rough guide a Safire-1 or Omega is about the same size as the next size down - eg A Safire 149 is about a 135. A Safire 119 is about a 109. Use an equation of 8%. The Safire-2 and Omni (Omni supercedes Omega) are measured the same as PD. All other Icarus Canopies are measured the same as PD. The reason for the difference is due to Precision measuring their canopies differently. Icarus have always measured the same as PD however when we originally commenced in the USA, Precision were building parachutes for us under license and were doing it using their size equations and not Icarus/PD's. We have therefore had to wait to supercede these models to change the size equation. Only the Safire and Omega were affected. Blue skies Simon Icarus Canopies USA: 1S671 Bender Lane, West Chicago, IL 60185, USA Ph. (630) 562-2735, Fax (630) 231-4430 Europe: P.I. El Ramassar, c/ Vallés, s/n O8520, Les Franqueses, Barcelona, SPAIN. Ph. (34) 938 496 432, Fax (34) 938 497 971 www.icaruscanopies.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cobaltdan 0 #43 October 10, 2003 yes it did get lost. i usually check in on this board to take a breather from staring at my cad screen all day. if a reply is really long, nit picky or nasty i tend to glaze over it and simply go back to work... i have two main rigs one has a pd 113 reserve in it and the other an atair 110 produced under german tso. i jump both in the states and in europe. the comment about tested in excess of tso was for maximum speed and weight, this with the force vs time curve are the important deployment specifications for a main canopy. obviously for high speed deployments to have an acceptable force vs. time curve deployment time/height must be expanded over that for a reserve. the 1000# tandem was simply an example of the highest reading we have recorded. we have seen the exact same issue and collected data from sport mains and pilots. as to space/alpha/cobalts and begineers: thank you for finaly addressing the point. but we will have to dissagree. i honestly believe that anyone safe on a sabre or safire is equally safe on a space/alpha/cobalt and there is years of history to back up. did you wing load the space @ 1.2? sincerely, danDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kansasskydiver 0 #44 October 10, 2003 From my experience with the "flies big" situation, the cobalt 170 "felt" like a 190 or so. I have 350+ jumps on a 170 and there was a noticable differenct in how it felt. The canopy itself though was the same size, atleast from packing it and the putting it in the bag etc. just my experience<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kansasskydiver 0 #45 October 10, 2003 I do agree with Dan on the fact that someone loading a Sabre 1.2 would feel safe on a Cobalt 1.2 It is a very docile canopy and can hadle a lot. Keep in mind I did land the canopy with a partial malfunction (Brake line not releasing) and was able to control it with rear risers and other inputs. I would have let someone with 150-200 jumps jump it, it's friendly until you make it do what you want it to do, then it's amazing. Just need softer openings for me to be sold, still an amazing canopy!<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #46 October 10, 2003 Ok, but WTF would a beginner be jumping at 1.2:1 for? I'm an instructor, my students ask me about gear all the time, and I try to keep them at 1:1 (or less in some cases) for their first rig. Same with the other instructors around the DZ. Following Brian Germain's chart Jumps Wingloading 0-100 1:1 100-200 1.1:1 200-300 1.2:1 300-400 1.3:1 400-500 1.4:1 500-600 1.5:1 600-700 1.6:1 700-800 1.7:1 etc. With the current state of canopy training across the board (not just individual DZs who might have kickass training), putting a low-time jumper (sub-100 jumps) out on anything loaded at 1.2:1 is dangerous and irrersponsible from the instructor's and/or gear dealer/manufacture point of view. This is another reason why the USPA should enact wingloading BSRs. Just flipping through the incident reports is enough to tell me that.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #47 October 10, 2003 If you have a look at the thread regarding the recent fatal landing accident in Lodi, you'll see that this was a case of a beginner jumper who was given a canopy that was beyond his capability. In truth, any canopy will behave in a docile fasion if hadled correctly. How else do you explain building two stacks with 90 sq ft Velocities? The key pricipal in selecting a canopy for a beginner should be that the canopy has docile handling regardless of the piolts input. By putting a beginner on a canopy with HP possibilities, you are leaving it up to the jumper to regulate the inputs, and to make sound decisions (sometimes under pressure), and as we all know, humans make mistakes. A properly sized Sabre will never mistake itself for a Cobalt, and behave in an unpredictable manner (the comparison is between a canopy and a human, where the canopy will always behave in the same manner and the human is unpredictable. I'm not impying that a Cobalt is unpredictable). By giving a jumper a safer canopy, they have the oppertunity to build experience and reflexes that will help to minnimize the occurence of said mistakes when they do progress to more aggresive canopies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cobaltdan 0 #48 October 10, 2003 again the point that keeps getting lost in these discussions is that 1.2 on a cobalt is exactly the same thing as 1.0 on a sabre. both instances will yield the same foward speed. this is due to differences in measurement, and the performance and efficiency of the wing. general charts are nice but it is general you must expect some variation when trying to apply it specifically to every canopy design. sincerely, danDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #49 October 10, 2003 Its not that "the point" gets lost, its that the majority of us don't believe you. That's what Diablo and Hooknswoop have been asking for, for quantified data that proves your claim about wingloading differences. You've stated that "its a more efficient design" but that's not really answering the questions posed by the others in this thread (and the previous thread). Dan, I would like to believe you, but I'm skeptical and I haven't seen any real proof or data to prove otherwise.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #50 October 10, 2003 Quoteyes it did get lost. i usually check in on this board to take a breather from staring at my cad screen all day. if a reply is really long, nit picky or nasty i tend to glaze over it and simply go back to work... 'Nit picky' as in pointing out anything that is less than 100% true? Quotei have two main rigs one has a pd 113 reserve in it and the other an atair 110 produced under german tso. i jump both in the states and in europe. FAR Part 105 states: "(§105.49 Foreign parachutists and equipment. (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft with an unapproved foreign parachute system unless -- (1) The parachute system is worn by a foreign parachutist who is the owner of that system. (2) The parachute system is of a single-harness dual parachute type. (3) The parachute system meets the civil aviation authority requirements of the foreign parachutist's country. (4) All foreign non-approved parachutes deployed by a foreign parachutist during a parachute operation conducted under this section shall be packed as follows -- (i) The main parachute must be packed by the foreign parachutist making the next parachute jump with that parachute, a certificated parachute rigger, or any other person acceptable to the Administrator. (ii) The reserve parachute must be packed in accordance with the foreign parachutist's civil aviation authority requirements, by a certificated parachute rigger, or any other person acceptable to the Administrator." Are you putting the pilot at risk of a FAR violation or are you a 'foreign parachutist'? Quotethe comment about tested in excess of tso was for maximum speed and weight, this with the force vs time curve are the important deployment specifications for a main canopy. obviously for high speed deployments to have an acceptable force vs. time curve deployment time/height must be expanded over that for a reserve. This is my point, "it is tested far in excess of tso requirements. it greatly exceeds requirements to be certified as a reserve.", is not 100% true. It does not 'greatly exceed requirements to be certified as a reserve'. Quotethe 1000# tandem was simply an example of the highest reading we have recorded. we have seen the exact same issue and collected data from sport mains and pilots. Again my point was your statement was misleading. The discussion was about sport canopies & pilot chutes, and without specifying the special circumstances, you suggested that the data was pertinent to sport mains & pilot chutes. Only after repeated questions did you disclose that it wasn't a sport main and pilot chute. Quoteas to space/alpha/cobalts and begineers: thank you for finaly addressing the point. but we will have to dissagree. i honestly believe that anyone safe on a sabre or safire is equally safe on a space/alpha/cobalt and there is years of history to back up. I haven't seen years of history to back up your claim. I can pint to many injuries and fatalities where a beginner under a high performance main was a factor in the incident. I have flown Alpha's (at 1.99:1, and 2.53:1) and the Space (at 1.44:1). As the recent incident with the low time jumper under the high performance canopy demonstrates, it is unsafe for low time jumpers to fly high performance canopies. After a turn, a Cobalt/Space/Alpha loses more altitude and achieves a higher speed and a greater rate of descent than an equally loaded Sabre, Spectre, Safire2, etc. Therefore a panic turn low to the ground has more potential for injury or death under a Cobalt/Space/Alpha/Stiletto/Crossfire2/Heatwave/etc. Students & beginners make mistakes as part of the learning process. Surviving those mistakes depends on several factors, not the least of which is the canopy thy are flying and the wing loading they are flying it at. I believe Atair, and maybe some other manufacturers, recognize that jumpers tend to stick with a manufacture, usually the manufacturer of their first canopy. Cessna and Piper know this and try very hard to get flight schools to use their trainers. A Flight student that learns in a Cessna 152/172, will most likely purchase a Cessna 172/182, because that is what they are comfortable with. If a canopy manufacturer can get a new jumper to buy their canopy first, and a smaller, higher performance canopy, the buyer will be amazed at the performance and will believe that canopy to be the best canopy made. Especially when all they have to compare it to is student and/or rental canopies. In all fairness, having jumped a Space and owned an Alpha, I do think it is a great canopy. They both opened and flew very well for me. It is a high performance canopy in the Stiletto, or maybe better than the stiletto, class. That being said, I have put a lot of different sizes and types of mains on student's backs in 7 years of teaching skydiving and I would not use a Cobalt/Space/Alpha/Stiletto/Crossfire2/Heatwave/etc as a student canopy. Nor would I recommend one as a first canopy. Quotedid you wing load the space @ 1.2? I loaded it at 1.44:1 Quote again the point that keeps getting lost in these discussions is that 1.2 on a cobalt is exactly the same thing as 1.0 on a sabre. both instances will yield the same foward speed. this is due to differences in measurement, and the performance and efficiency of the wing. They do not have the same turn rate, sensitivity in the flare, maximum speed, altitude loss in a turn, rate of altitude loss in a turn, etc. These are the things that can bite a student or beginner. They will make mistakes, and under a suitable canopy, they will survive to learn from those mistakes. Too many times I have been a first responder to someone that just hammered in and their first words when I get to them are, "Man, that was stupid." Why put a student or beginner under a high performance canopy? With a Sabre 1 or 2, a Safire 1 or 2, or traditional large F-11 canopy, an uneven flare results in a turn rate low enough that the student or beginner can feel the turn and understand that a mistake was made and begin to learn from the mistake and prevent it from happening again. The turn rate is low enough that the landing may still be able to be stood up or at the very least not produce an injury. An uneven flare under a high performance main can produce a turn rate too fast for the student to correct or even realize what happened and can't learn from it and fix it. A high performance canopy flared unevenly can result in being thrown onto their side and possibly result in an injury. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
roq 0 #35 October 8, 2003 basically my roq-mod is similar to h-mod but with the nose more closed. The triangles a little larger than h-mod are sewn close the bottom skin of the leeding edge. Half triangles also exist in the last two cell. The very soft openings need a small slider and the performance is basically the same to the h-mod that I also tested in a copy that I applied in my canopy for test. See pict in attach, sorry for bad pict quality Roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #36 October 9, 2003 we are not banking on any 'cool' factor. simply: this has to do with 2 factors. one the way we measure sq footage and two the efficiency of the wing. some other manufacturers if they create a more efficient wing simply adjust their sq' footage measurement so that people will be jumping apples to apples performance wise when comparing canopies. we always use the same measurement method. we do not add to the actual footage when quoting to skew for efficiency. we simple change our recommended wing loading. i.e. safires were more efficient than sabers. a 169 safire is considerably smaller than a 170 saber. the 169 is not a 169 but they chose to call it so. our 170 is actually a 170 and we call it a 170 and to compare apples to apples to a saber the cobalt should be slightly heavier loaded. do you understand? i am an engineer not a salesman. i dont believe in skewing data for marketing. btw efficiency is not a flatter trim. it is a better glide at a given wingloading, but not nec. in free flight. skydiving canopies are never trimmed for the best glide in free flight, you have to adjust with your brakes or risers to find that point. more effiecient wings generate more lift. the biggest factor effecting efficiency on a skydiving canopy beyond the airfoil is spanwise airfoil distortion on the top skin. sincerely, daniel preston atair aerodynamics www.extremefly.comDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #37 October 9, 2003 Quotei.e. safires were more efficient than sabers. a 169 safire is considerably smaller than a 170 saber. the 169 is not a 169 but they chose to call it so. our 170 is actually a 170 and we call it a 170 and to compare apples to apples to a saber the cobalt should be slightly heavier loaded. do you understand? I comprehend what you have said. What generation of Safire do you use in your example? The Safire 1's produced in the US were measured by the PIA standard. Later Safires have been reported as being measured by the same method PD uses. What method do you use to measure your canopies? I am still looking for a definition of "fly's big" Do you accept that a heavier loading on one of your canopies will increase the responsiveness due to increased airspeed (among other factors)?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #38 October 9, 2003 I'm sure you understand what he means by "flies big" an example would be 120 feels like a 135. ... Leave that one alone. I flew a 65, it looked small and it "Felt" much larger. Carry on.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #39 October 9, 2003 He's just wanting "it flies big" quantified, with actual examples of why and how. Atleast that's what I think he wants, I haven't been keeping up with the thread.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #40 October 10, 2003 I think my post got lost in the other thread and I was hoping for a response; Dan, your profile indicates you jump at the "RANCH" and use an "atair reserve 110 ft²". According to TSO Holders (TSO 23d) , Atair does not hold TSO C23d Authorization. This tells me 2 things, 1) Atair does make a reserve canopy, and 2) you are illegally jumping a non-TSO'd reserve canopy in the U.S. Is this correct? Refering to the Cobalt, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it is tested far in excess of tso requirements. it greatly exceeds requirements to be certified as a reserve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To include?: Being functionally open within 3 seconds from the moment of pack opening? Being functionally open within 300 feet from the altitude at pack opening? Being functionally open within 2 seconds of breaking away from another canopy descending at less than 20 FPS? All 70 drop tests? What is the Cobalt 65's rate of descent with 182 lbs. suspended weight (a 2.8:1 wingloading)? Not higher than 24 FPS? Below a total velocity of 36 FPS? [deployment configuration, i.e. brakes stowed] 2 drops of a free fall of at least 20 seconds where the user must suffer no significant discomfort from the opening shock and must be able to disengage himself unaided from the harness after landing? Some Cobalt owners have posted that their Cobalt opens unacceptably hard, even following all of Atair's recommendations. Some Cobalt owners have posted that their Cobalt opens very nicely, all the time. I would conclude that nicely opening Cobalts are hit or miss. Some do, some don't. Atair has made some outrageous claims on this forum in the past, claims they could not back up. Anyone considering purchasing a new canopy should understand that manufactures will try to paint the best possible picture of their product and are in the business of making money. Some manufacturers are more reputable than others. Research any gear purchase thoroughly, to include test jumping a product you are considering. A little history; Atair has posted: "something to consider that most people do not realize is that the first shock you feel when deploying a canopy is at line stretch before your canopy is out of the bag. this shock is caused by the pilot chute, not the canopy. if this defination is acceptable as line dump i have quite alot of proof as to it happening both video and datalogged jumps. as the opening sequence is a series of fast shocks a jumper is usually incorect when recounting what happened in the analysis of a jump. i.e. 10 different pilots, 10 jumps, same single canopy, and you will get 10+ different accounts of how it opened. probably none of which match the recorded datalogged sensor data. the most dramatic recorded instance of the above was 29g's at line stretch and then 6.4g peak once the canopy came out of the bag. improperly sized pilots especially at higer speeds can definately rock you harder than you canopy. " Only later, after being questioned, is it explained: "1000# exit weight, 350 sq' main, vector tandem rig, 184mph speed at deployment. scrunchie failed to collapse drogue, line stretch generated 29g's, canopy upon exiting bag generated a max of 6.4 g's stage 1, about 3.5 g's stage 2. " It was not a normal sport rig, but a tandem at high speed with a drogue that failed to collapse. The data used to back up that statement doesn't apply to normal sport rigs. In another thread Atair posted: "so yes our student canopy is considerably more elliptical than many canopies you will see in swoop competitions." To which was asked: "Your student canopy, do you mean the Cobalt?" (The largest Cobalt offered is a 170 sq. ft. and a 'student' is defined, in the USA, as a skydiver without a license, generally less than 20 jumps.) To which they replied: "yes i mean the cobalt and previously the space/alpha." "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 clarified later: "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" "Where?" But a Drop Zone where the student equipment included Cobalt 170's (or smaller) was never given. To reply to your post: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as far as an elliptical design being good for begineers and high experience there is absolutely nothing contradictory about that. you are basing that comment on misconceptions of you think being elliptical means. older elliptical designs had certain negative traits that made them only suitable for higher experience. but the reality that the only thing you can assume by knowing a canopy is elliptical is that it is more efficient, absolutely nothing more. wethre it is a pocket rocket or a student canopy are determined by the sum total of many design variables. the cobalt is not prone to spinning mal, is very stable, very efficient (fly's big), high glide, slow foward speed and high flare at light wing loadings it is imo a superior choice to a saber/safire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I notice you have changed you term from 'student' to beginner', progress. "imo", from the salesman, not an Instructor. Many Instructors, including me, have a different opinion of the Cobalt as a beginner's canopy. It is not suitable for beginners. I base that opinion upon of years of Instructing. The characteristics the Cobalt demonstrates are not the characteristics of a good student or beginner canopy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the alpha has a flawless 6year track record with begineers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. It does not have a flawless record with beginners. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the only difference between the space and the alpha : the name and recommended loading. i have pointed this out many times and no one has ever said the space is an unsuitable canopy for begineers but in people still have the knee jerk reaction of thinking an alpha or cobalt could be good for begineers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Space is unsuitable for beginners. (I have jumped one and was surprised at the performance) Derek Think Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #41 October 10, 2003 Hey Derek, I do not think your post got lost. I am sure you have noticed that Atair avoids answering the more direct critical questions. They prefer (at least it seems by their posts) to only address questions they can skirt indirectly around. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #42 October 10, 2003 Hey Dan: I would like to address the sample of the Icarus Safire. In Icarus defense 2 years ago when I contacted them to ask about the Safire, the very first thing they explained to me is that they were sized wrong. In fact about a year ago I e-mail Simon and asked if he would reply to the issues on the Safire so I could post it here. Now reading Simon’s response it sounds more like a sub-contractor issue than a sales scheme that when you call the factory they tell you about up front. Kirk (below is the letter from Simon) The Safire-1 and the Omega are measured differently to PD canopies. As a rough guide a Safire-1 or Omega is about the same size as the next size down - eg A Safire 149 is about a 135. A Safire 119 is about a 109. Use an equation of 8%. The Safire-2 and Omni (Omni supercedes Omega) are measured the same as PD. All other Icarus Canopies are measured the same as PD. The reason for the difference is due to Precision measuring their canopies differently. Icarus have always measured the same as PD however when we originally commenced in the USA, Precision were building parachutes for us under license and were doing it using their size equations and not Icarus/PD's. We have therefore had to wait to supercede these models to change the size equation. Only the Safire and Omega were affected. Blue skies Simon Icarus Canopies USA: 1S671 Bender Lane, West Chicago, IL 60185, USA Ph. (630) 562-2735, Fax (630) 231-4430 Europe: P.I. El Ramassar, c/ Vallés, s/n O8520, Les Franqueses, Barcelona, SPAIN. Ph. (34) 938 496 432, Fax (34) 938 497 971 www.icaruscanopies.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #43 October 10, 2003 yes it did get lost. i usually check in on this board to take a breather from staring at my cad screen all day. if a reply is really long, nit picky or nasty i tend to glaze over it and simply go back to work... i have two main rigs one has a pd 113 reserve in it and the other an atair 110 produced under german tso. i jump both in the states and in europe. the comment about tested in excess of tso was for maximum speed and weight, this with the force vs time curve are the important deployment specifications for a main canopy. obviously for high speed deployments to have an acceptable force vs. time curve deployment time/height must be expanded over that for a reserve. the 1000# tandem was simply an example of the highest reading we have recorded. we have seen the exact same issue and collected data from sport mains and pilots. as to space/alpha/cobalts and begineers: thank you for finaly addressing the point. but we will have to dissagree. i honestly believe that anyone safe on a sabre or safire is equally safe on a space/alpha/cobalt and there is years of history to back up. did you wing load the space @ 1.2? sincerely, danDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kansasskydiver 0 #44 October 10, 2003 From my experience with the "flies big" situation, the cobalt 170 "felt" like a 190 or so. I have 350+ jumps on a 170 and there was a noticable differenct in how it felt. The canopy itself though was the same size, atleast from packing it and the putting it in the bag etc. just my experience<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kansasskydiver 0 #45 October 10, 2003 I do agree with Dan on the fact that someone loading a Sabre 1.2 would feel safe on a Cobalt 1.2 It is a very docile canopy and can hadle a lot. Keep in mind I did land the canopy with a partial malfunction (Brake line not releasing) and was able to control it with rear risers and other inputs. I would have let someone with 150-200 jumps jump it, it's friendly until you make it do what you want it to do, then it's amazing. Just need softer openings for me to be sold, still an amazing canopy!<--- See look, pink dolphins DO exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #46 October 10, 2003 Ok, but WTF would a beginner be jumping at 1.2:1 for? I'm an instructor, my students ask me about gear all the time, and I try to keep them at 1:1 (or less in some cases) for their first rig. Same with the other instructors around the DZ. Following Brian Germain's chart Jumps Wingloading 0-100 1:1 100-200 1.1:1 200-300 1.2:1 300-400 1.3:1 400-500 1.4:1 500-600 1.5:1 600-700 1.6:1 700-800 1.7:1 etc. With the current state of canopy training across the board (not just individual DZs who might have kickass training), putting a low-time jumper (sub-100 jumps) out on anything loaded at 1.2:1 is dangerous and irrersponsible from the instructor's and/or gear dealer/manufacture point of view. This is another reason why the USPA should enact wingloading BSRs. Just flipping through the incident reports is enough to tell me that.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #47 October 10, 2003 If you have a look at the thread regarding the recent fatal landing accident in Lodi, you'll see that this was a case of a beginner jumper who was given a canopy that was beyond his capability. In truth, any canopy will behave in a docile fasion if hadled correctly. How else do you explain building two stacks with 90 sq ft Velocities? The key pricipal in selecting a canopy for a beginner should be that the canopy has docile handling regardless of the piolts input. By putting a beginner on a canopy with HP possibilities, you are leaving it up to the jumper to regulate the inputs, and to make sound decisions (sometimes under pressure), and as we all know, humans make mistakes. A properly sized Sabre will never mistake itself for a Cobalt, and behave in an unpredictable manner (the comparison is between a canopy and a human, where the canopy will always behave in the same manner and the human is unpredictable. I'm not impying that a Cobalt is unpredictable). By giving a jumper a safer canopy, they have the oppertunity to build experience and reflexes that will help to minnimize the occurence of said mistakes when they do progress to more aggresive canopies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #48 October 10, 2003 again the point that keeps getting lost in these discussions is that 1.2 on a cobalt is exactly the same thing as 1.0 on a sabre. both instances will yield the same foward speed. this is due to differences in measurement, and the performance and efficiency of the wing. general charts are nice but it is general you must expect some variation when trying to apply it specifically to every canopy design. sincerely, danDaniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #49 October 10, 2003 Its not that "the point" gets lost, its that the majority of us don't believe you. That's what Diablo and Hooknswoop have been asking for, for quantified data that proves your claim about wingloading differences. You've stated that "its a more efficient design" but that's not really answering the questions posed by the others in this thread (and the previous thread). Dan, I would like to believe you, but I'm skeptical and I haven't seen any real proof or data to prove otherwise.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #50 October 10, 2003 Quoteyes it did get lost. i usually check in on this board to take a breather from staring at my cad screen all day. if a reply is really long, nit picky or nasty i tend to glaze over it and simply go back to work... 'Nit picky' as in pointing out anything that is less than 100% true? Quotei have two main rigs one has a pd 113 reserve in it and the other an atair 110 produced under german tso. i jump both in the states and in europe. FAR Part 105 states: "(§105.49 Foreign parachutists and equipment. (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft with an unapproved foreign parachute system unless -- (1) The parachute system is worn by a foreign parachutist who is the owner of that system. (2) The parachute system is of a single-harness dual parachute type. (3) The parachute system meets the civil aviation authority requirements of the foreign parachutist's country. (4) All foreign non-approved parachutes deployed by a foreign parachutist during a parachute operation conducted under this section shall be packed as follows -- (i) The main parachute must be packed by the foreign parachutist making the next parachute jump with that parachute, a certificated parachute rigger, or any other person acceptable to the Administrator. (ii) The reserve parachute must be packed in accordance with the foreign parachutist's civil aviation authority requirements, by a certificated parachute rigger, or any other person acceptable to the Administrator." Are you putting the pilot at risk of a FAR violation or are you a 'foreign parachutist'? Quotethe comment about tested in excess of tso was for maximum speed and weight, this with the force vs time curve are the important deployment specifications for a main canopy. obviously for high speed deployments to have an acceptable force vs. time curve deployment time/height must be expanded over that for a reserve. This is my point, "it is tested far in excess of tso requirements. it greatly exceeds requirements to be certified as a reserve.", is not 100% true. It does not 'greatly exceed requirements to be certified as a reserve'. Quotethe 1000# tandem was simply an example of the highest reading we have recorded. we have seen the exact same issue and collected data from sport mains and pilots. Again my point was your statement was misleading. The discussion was about sport canopies & pilot chutes, and without specifying the special circumstances, you suggested that the data was pertinent to sport mains & pilot chutes. Only after repeated questions did you disclose that it wasn't a sport main and pilot chute. Quoteas to space/alpha/cobalts and begineers: thank you for finaly addressing the point. but we will have to dissagree. i honestly believe that anyone safe on a sabre or safire is equally safe on a space/alpha/cobalt and there is years of history to back up. I haven't seen years of history to back up your claim. I can pint to many injuries and fatalities where a beginner under a high performance main was a factor in the incident. I have flown Alpha's (at 1.99:1, and 2.53:1) and the Space (at 1.44:1). As the recent incident with the low time jumper under the high performance canopy demonstrates, it is unsafe for low time jumpers to fly high performance canopies. After a turn, a Cobalt/Space/Alpha loses more altitude and achieves a higher speed and a greater rate of descent than an equally loaded Sabre, Spectre, Safire2, etc. Therefore a panic turn low to the ground has more potential for injury or death under a Cobalt/Space/Alpha/Stiletto/Crossfire2/Heatwave/etc. Students & beginners make mistakes as part of the learning process. Surviving those mistakes depends on several factors, not the least of which is the canopy thy are flying and the wing loading they are flying it at. I believe Atair, and maybe some other manufacturers, recognize that jumpers tend to stick with a manufacture, usually the manufacturer of their first canopy. Cessna and Piper know this and try very hard to get flight schools to use their trainers. A Flight student that learns in a Cessna 152/172, will most likely purchase a Cessna 172/182, because that is what they are comfortable with. If a canopy manufacturer can get a new jumper to buy their canopy first, and a smaller, higher performance canopy, the buyer will be amazed at the performance and will believe that canopy to be the best canopy made. Especially when all they have to compare it to is student and/or rental canopies. In all fairness, having jumped a Space and owned an Alpha, I do think it is a great canopy. They both opened and flew very well for me. It is a high performance canopy in the Stiletto, or maybe better than the stiletto, class. That being said, I have put a lot of different sizes and types of mains on student's backs in 7 years of teaching skydiving and I would not use a Cobalt/Space/Alpha/Stiletto/Crossfire2/Heatwave/etc as a student canopy. Nor would I recommend one as a first canopy. Quotedid you wing load the space @ 1.2? I loaded it at 1.44:1 Quote again the point that keeps getting lost in these discussions is that 1.2 on a cobalt is exactly the same thing as 1.0 on a sabre. both instances will yield the same foward speed. this is due to differences in measurement, and the performance and efficiency of the wing. They do not have the same turn rate, sensitivity in the flare, maximum speed, altitude loss in a turn, rate of altitude loss in a turn, etc. These are the things that can bite a student or beginner. They will make mistakes, and under a suitable canopy, they will survive to learn from those mistakes. Too many times I have been a first responder to someone that just hammered in and their first words when I get to them are, "Man, that was stupid." Why put a student or beginner under a high performance canopy? With a Sabre 1 or 2, a Safire 1 or 2, or traditional large F-11 canopy, an uneven flare results in a turn rate low enough that the student or beginner can feel the turn and understand that a mistake was made and begin to learn from the mistake and prevent it from happening again. The turn rate is low enough that the landing may still be able to be stood up or at the very least not produce an injury. An uneven flare under a high performance main can produce a turn rate too fast for the student to correct or even realize what happened and can't learn from it and fix it. A high performance canopy flared unevenly can result in being thrown onto their side and possibly result in an injury. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
