diablopilot 2 #1 August 20, 2004 I've got ahold of 3 demos 107, 97, and 86. if anyone qualified is interested. I'll have them through at least this weekend. I'll be down at the school this Saturday, and somwhere on the DZ Sunday. Edit: 'cause I transposed some digits and it would have made my wingloading REALLY impresive.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #2 August 20, 2004 yea, hurry and get done with the 107 and 97, i get those 2 next later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #3 August 20, 2004 Whooops....sorry just uh....."lost" em.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #4 August 20, 2004 68? So is this Rage different than what Acrojunky posted about? On Flight Concepts' site, sizes were 90 - 230. It is the Flight Concepts Rage, right? I'm so confused... all the time. I'd like to hear how it flies. I'm more curious about the openings. Very strange nose design. Edit: Ah, Ian cleared that up here. Rage and R.A.G.E. -- got it. I blame Acrojunky and Sweet Cuppin' Cakes for this confusion. And to add to the clarification, it is the R.A.G.E. that I'd like to hear about. Keep your thoughts about the Rage to yourself, dammit."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 August 20, 2004 No, there are two very different canopies. There is the Rage by Flight Concepts (USA) which I believe to be a mediup performance (might be hybrid) canopy built in a large range of sizes. Then there is the Paratec (Germany) R.A.G.E. high performance canopy. It has a new type of nose inlet, some what similar in functional idea, but much different in design to an Airlock. I don't know anything about how it opens and flys because I have just hooked it up and packed it. I'll be doing a few jumps later today. I don't care for the slider kill design, and the 86 has this largish vent in the slider, but we'll see what some flight testing shows.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #6 August 20, 2004 QuoteIt has a new type of nose inlet, some what similar in functional idea, but much different in design to an Airlock.Now that we're on the same page, I saw video and pictures of this canopy. It appeared that the nose was entirely closed, and the canopy inflated sort of through the bottom skin, right up against the nose."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 August 20, 2004 A previous thread about it: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=569940#569940 and some more infor on the design theory... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=954354#954354 We'll see how it works this weekend.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #8 August 20, 2004 Interesting. Maybe even overthought. The "conventional" nose design has definitely proven itself when it's part of a good wing. The theory behind this nose design seems very innovative, but what about the rest of the wing? An average nose on an good wing makes for a better canopy than a good nose on an average wing. I guess we'll find out more after this weekend."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #9 August 20, 2004 Agreed. Iteresting things happening in canopy technology lately. Lost of nifty ideas comming from europe, we'll see how they fare in the market. Hopfully some of them will be realized into large market shares. I for one would like to see the Blade from HiPer get some more exposure, as I find it to be a very nice wing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #10 August 20, 2004 QuoteI for one would like to see the Blade fro HiPer get somore exposure, as I find it to be a very nice wing. Definately. I do hear more and more people asking about it so I think word is getting out there. Like all things it's just taking it's sweet ass time Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdctlc 0 #11 August 21, 2004 Lots of speculation and talk about it on the forums but lets hope to get some real feedback after this weekend... Scott C."He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatbomb 0 #12 August 23, 2004 So...it's after the weekend...how did it go?--- Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii! Piccies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #13 August 23, 2004 Well no one took me up on the offer, but I did get to do several jumps on 2 of the three canopies, the 107 and 97. Openings: Phenomenal. Couldn't be better if they tried. Terminal and subterminal openings were both without ANY "hunt" at all. On heading with in 5 degees or so, snivles ranging from 700 to 1000 ft. Design fetures, construction: The nose is cool looking, the construction appears to be of good quality. I do not like the slider kill design, it's 4 kills with the two right side and the 2 left side "looped" to a common pull. Very snagable. The lines appear to be a non coated Vectran. Don't like it. Control inputs:The toggle pressure is smooth though out the stroke. The 107 demo's control lines were way to short, less than 3 inches of front riser input affected the tail. The front riser pressure is extremely light, very managable and responsive, easy to hold into a dive. The rear riser presure was insanely heavy, so much so I didn't bother to use them for landings at all. Canopy might benifit from a re-trim. Landings: The 107 was able to be dived quite well and recovered nicely from a 270 initiated from 600-700 ft AGL (at Perris) but once input was given, it began to shut down quickly. This was probably due to the short control lines. The 97 was better (control lines were longer, but not long enough) but still the speed bled off quickly. I believe this to have more to do with the relative thickness of the airfoil than the inlet/nose design. Overall impression: I loved the openings, didn't like the trim and control input pressures, like the idea/theory of the inlet/nose design, and think the canopy could benifit from a thinner airfoil. If I had a 9 cell non crossbraced to choose to fly right now it would still be the Blade from HiPer, but the R.A.G.E. may very well satify some people's itch, and could lead the way to somemore innovative designs in the future.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #14 August 24, 2004 See above...---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #15 August 24, 2004 I thought one of the points of the R.A.G.E. is that it has a thinner than normal airfoil, is that not the case? GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #16 August 24, 2004 It's not a skybarge, but I jump thiner airfoils usually.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefly68 0 #17 August 24, 2004 Hi QuoteIt's not a skybarge, but I jump thiner airfoils usually. Which one?? i compared the foil of the 107 and the 86 with the foil of a same sized velocity and the R.A.G.E. is 1 inch thinner! to the breaklines, maybe the line would be run through the toggle grommet 2 or 3 times. (was the demo on risers?) at normal lineset the breakline should be about more then 1 inch to long. blues Frankprovehito in altum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #18 August 24, 2004 The control line seemed to attached in a normal fashion with the ends finger traped into a standard loop and larks headed onto the toggle. The length on the 107 was WAY too short for my tastes. The tail was deflected with 3 inches of front riser travel.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #19 August 26, 2004 QuoteThe front riser pressure is extremely light, very managable and responsive, easy to hold into a dive. The rear riser presure was insanely heavy, so much so I didn't bother to use them for landings at all. Canopy might benifit from a re-trim. No, it would not benifit from a re-trim That is the way it was designed. The front riser pressure is so light that you can easily fly the canopy using only the front risers. Try putting a VX in a dive with the left F-Riser and the swopping to the right F-Riser. Unless you are Arnold Schwarzenegger you'll never get the right Riser down. The idea is that you can control the heading of the dive just by using both front risers. This is acheived by hanging the pilot more under the center of the wing rather than under the nose (Velocity style). This of course creates far more pressure on the rear risers. If you are not used to it you will be wary of applying the pressure needed to land with the rears for fear of stalling the canopy. I have landed the R.A.G.E 97 and 86 with rears. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefly68 0 #20 August 27, 2004 Hi and i´ve land my 86 just only with the rears!! no toggles! at 0 knots wind! on the R.A.G.E. it is possible to pull the rears more then 6inch down and the wing is still not stalling. blues frankprovehito in altum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #21 August 27, 2004 QuoteNo, it would not benifit from a re-trim I disagree. QuoteThat is the way it was designed. Quite possibly so, but I don't like that aspect. I prefer a more ballanced trim. The canopies I jump have very managable fronts and rears, plus the rears have a very long usable range. There are aspects of the R.A.G.E. that I would like to see in other canopies as well. Starting with the openings. They are amazing!---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeFlyFridge 0 #22 September 2, 2004 Ok, I know it´s not the best photo (actually it´s a Vid-cap) but I think you can see that the airfoil of the R.A.G.E (86sqft) isn´t thicker than that from a VX (96sqft). Seen both in direct comparison, I´d say that from the R.A.G.E is in fact thinner. Ok, one can argue about the trim of the canopy, but that´s a personal point of view, I think seeing people doing 360`s diving turns from around 1000 ft is pretty impressive and i´ve seen the R.A.G.E landed with just rears, so it´s just personal preferance and what you´re used to and comfortable with, as always! On the other hand, I do think xbraced canopies are still superior when it comes to competition swooping! But imagine if the two technologies could be usefully packed into one canopy. Now that would be interesting! A ridgid airfoil with a nearly non deformed nose and a nearly perfect laminar airflow with minimized airflow distortion. As close as it get´s to a "real" wing!------------------------------------------------------ ROCK ON,.....HARD! Proud European!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roq 0 #23 September 2, 2004 "On the other hand, I do think xbraced canopies are still superior when it comes to competition swooping! " There is a slight advantage for the x-braced, but I don't see the score to improve a lot for the people that changed the non x-braced HP canopy for the x-braced canopy. I think that a top pilot with x-braced canopy is a top pilot with good non x-braced HP canopy. Roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roq 0 #24 September 2, 2004 In my opinion the impression of more larger thickness of RAGE is because RAGE has the conventional front nose form while the x-braced has the of the nose almost completely closed. This visual effect and the less span distortion of the x-braced canopy make the impression that the RAGE have more thickness airfoil. Roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeFlyFridge 0 #25 September 2, 2004 QuoteI think that a top pilot with x-braced canopy is a top pilot with good non x-braced HP canopy. Definitely, yes! I don´t doubt that! It´s the pilot what makes the difference! But I didn´t talk about the pilot, I´ve talked about the design of a canopy!------------------------------------------------------ ROCK ON,.....HARD! Proud European!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
