20kN

Sure, but did you try cutting it away from madly diving linetwists while spinning on your back? Any canopy will work just fine under optimal environments. I once knew a guy who wingsuited on occasion with a Valkyrie 96. Just because it works okay when the conditions are aligned for it to work well does not mean it's ideal. The whole point in 7 cell specific WS canopies are they are intended to open well under poor conditions and remain somewhat stable or docile in extreme linetwists, which is not likely at a high WL, not even with a 7 cell.

I'd say more like for all skydivers, except possibly CReW Dogs. There seems to be a mentality that newer jumpers should have an RSL, but once you know what you're doing then you dont need one anymore. Of course you are free to do as you feel is best, but most of the actual fatalities I know about where an RSL would likely have saved the jumper's life involved a very experienced skydiver and not a newbie. This is what Dan BC has to say on the topic: http://danbrodsky-chenfeld.com/blog/2013/06/27/safety-tips-for-skydiving-and-life-as-well/

There are several threads about this canopy in the last few weeks. Look back through the WS forum.

I'd still like to see this.

I've never flown a Storm, but most of the information I've read about them is negative with regard to their suitability for WS. They seem to have a tendency to spin up in linetwists and I've met a few people who have cut them away. If there is one non-WS canopy I'd buy for WS, it would be a Triathlon.

It depends on what you consider to mean 'best.' To me, the 'best' WS canopy is one that opens the best. The manufacturer would put all of its effort in maximizing the opening quality so you dont have to cut it away all the time. In that case, I'd say the Epicene is first, Horizon second, WinX third and P7 fourth. But that same list is literally the exact opposite with regards to how the canopy flies. The Epicene is very boring and has a poor flare, whereas the P7 is a bit more sporty and has a better flare. So it all depends on what you want out of the canopy. Any of the four listed canopies are great for WS and so no matter what you chose you're getting a canopy that's better for WS than the majority of what's out there.

Good to hear.

Yes they are. A 170 with a WL of 1.2 is going to be more docile than a 135 at the same WL. I would not buy all brand new gear in your situation. Buying brand new gear for your first kit is not a good idea in general, but especially in your case because I cant imagine many people wanting to buy a 280 rig. That's a pretty limited market and you're going to have a hard time reselling something like that. Also, packing brand new canopies, especially as a new jumper, is a total bitch. Packing a brand new 280 is going to have you putting your fist through a wall. Seriously. You're going to struggle hard core packing a brand new canopy that large. A well used canopy will be considerably easier to pack. If you get a good deal on a used rig, after 200 jumps you could probably sell it for close to what you paid for it. The more used something is, the less it depreciates. A rig that was new but now has 200 jumps is going to lose a lot more value than a rig that had 1500 jumps and now has 1700.

You can get the WinX in LPV material, the same as the Horizon and Epicene. The ZP is about on par with most other 7 cells. The manufacturer told me the WinX is 5% smaller than a PD storm. It packed about the same as my Pilot 7, except my Pilot 7 has 300 jumps and the WinX has 30, so in reality it's probably actually a tad smaller than the P7. Note that the WinX is smaller than it's rated. The 170 is actually a 163 as I recall. This is mentioned in the user manual.

Here is a video. This reserve has an older PC which was updated later on as I understand it, but it's worth viewing anyway:

And add to the fact that overstuffing the reserve packing tray can be risky. It increases the chances of a reserve container lock with a low speed cutaway. The manufacturers publish maximum canopy sizes for a reason.

Sounds like maybe there was an issue with your P7. I havent taken my P7 to terminal, but I dont slow down 'as slow as humanly possible' with my WS either. I like a small amount of speed. I've pitched at air speeds of 100 MPH. Anyway, I found the opposite to be true. The P7 opens too softly in my opinion. It snivels for quite awhile. The WinX opens considerably faster. Maybe it was because I was flying ZP and not LPV. Not sure. I dident notice a large difference in glide between the P7 and WinX at my WL (1.15). The WinX was flatter, but not considerably so. I've taken my P7 back from pretty far spots (just as far as any of my 9-cells I used in the past) and I still made it back fine. But my WL is light (1.15). Some trim is important too. As flat as humanly possible can cause problems, which is evident in my WinX vs P7 comparison. The WinX does not handle turbulence well. It distorts and shakes around a ton in even moderate turbulence. The P7 doesent handle it as good as my 9 cell does either, but it handles it slightly better than the WinX. Airspeed is important to cut through turbulence and remain inflated. Regarding the Epicene and Horizon. They are both kind of modeled around BASE/ reserve platforms. I've flown all four WS canopies and found the Epicene and Horizon were the most reserve-like. The flights are boring, they have square planforms, very low aspect ratios and they fly and open like reserves. The main two difference between the Epicene and Horizon is that the Horizon can actually flare fine without swooping it in where as the Epicene does not flare nearly as well. The new Epicene Pro is supposed to address that. I'd say they are probably the best two opening canopies on the market for WS though. The manufacturers put everything they can into getting them to open correctly with a WS and they hung their entire line on that premise. Having flown all 4 I'd put it like this: Epicene: Reserve-like openings. Poor flare performance without hooking it in. Probably the best opening canopy on the market (10/10) short of buying an actual BASE canopy. Boring flight (intentionally so). Probably best for WS only. Not intended for terminal. Horizon: Reserve-like openings. Good flare. Boring flight (intentionally so). Very good openings (9.5/10). Probably best for WS only. Not intended for terminal. WinX: Made by a BASE canopy. Good openings (9/10). Opens faster than most canopies. Probably not the best choice if you want something you can do lots of terminal jumps with. Semi-eleptical planform (As far as I can tell). More boring than most canopies, but not as boring as the Epicene and Horizon. Very flat glide. The best glide of any of the WS canopies. Good flare. Probably the best flare of any of the WS canopies. Might open a bit too hard for terminal use regularly. P7: Opens very soft (mine does anyway). Semi-eleptical planform as far as I can tell. The most 'sporty' of the four options, but still good openings (8.5/10) and reasonable flare. Flies steeper than the other four canopies, but still less steep than many others out there. Can be used on WS or terminal. Another option is to buy a Triathlon. They are not marketed toward wingsuiters, but they are probably the best non-WS marketed canopy out there for wingsuiting. It's extremely docile and flies like a reserve. It has a very low aspect ratio and it looks like it has a square planform from the material on Aerodyne's website (cant confirm though). Regarding the WinX. I found the manufacturer to have very good customer service. They mostly make BASE canopies and seem to have a good reputation. My friend has a WinX, complained the openings were too hard and they sent a replacement slider for free without question. They offered to send me a demo for free (which I took them up on via a US dealer). One thing to note is that the canopy is smaller than marketed. The 170 is actually a 163 and the 150 is I think a 144. It says this in the manual. Here is a copy of the WinX user manual reposted from someone here on DZ.com: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6kex0zdkrl2ttbe/WINX MANUAL.docx?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR3Z6K7OP5gc5j449kyr5tNB9kWqRzO3L4M8ucEcRSzcaNVWqKzp4ecqRFA

I only have 10 jumps on the Horizon and maybe 50 on the Pilot 7. Anyway, I found the openings to be similar. The Pilot 7 was possibly a bit softer, but both were plenty soft. The P7 is actually a bit too soft. The WinX opens faster, which I prefer for WS. Anyway, flare on both was acceptable, but of course not as good as a nine cell. The P7 has a slightly more aggressive platform. I believe it's semi-eleptical whereas I think the Horizon is square. Whether this is good or not depends on your goals I guess. The P7 is a bit sharper in turns than the Horizon. The Horizon is very slow and sluggish, but presumably that is the intent. The Horizon only comes in LPV fabric whereas the P7 comes in standard ZP, ZPX and hybrid LPV. Overall I'd say it seems Horizon is intended for maximum opening reliability and pretty much nothing else. The Pilot 7 can be taken terminal and it's slightly more fun to fly than the Horizon, but possibly at the cost of a slight decrease in opening reliability, although it's still one of the top canopies on the market for WS. I've only used the ZP version of the P7 and so I have no idea how the LPV version is.

Aha, I see I'm thinking about the Vector III and you're testing on an Icon. One difference is how the RSL is attached over the shoulder: The Vector has velcro over a long distance. (Like 8" or so on a tiny Vector I'm repacking, including the Collins leg.) The Icon just has the RSL in a fold-over channel, with no or minimal velcro? You can clarify on that point. So yes, you may find it a lot easier to back-load the L side cutaway cable with an Icon than Vector. That's one place the 2 rigs differ, despite Aerodyne having Skyhook tech bought from UPT. (Aerodyne and UPT have dealt with other minor aspects of staging loop rigging slightly differently too.) I should also note that you are testing the harness without anyone in it, allowing the shoulder to flex. Wearing the rig would reduce that flex. (In the air under canopy it gets messier: Although there's tension on the harness, the shoulder straps can also sit somewhat above the jumper's shoulders.) Although the flex might not matter that much either way with the the Icon where the RSL pulled free relatively easily. So far unless I see better evidence, I'll still trust that the split RSL/Collins lanyard, combined with the velcro'd RSL, will do a the job UPT intends it to do, keeping a backloaded Skyhook/RSL/Collins lanyard from pulling out the L cutaway cable. But I'm also somewhat more concerned with Icon's design. Yet in some cases all the velcro can be detrimental, such as on a Sigma with a baglocked main and collapsed drogue, where the drag may not always pull the RSL completely free. Tradeoffs. @ skytribe: Thanks for those documents. I had a similar informal statement from UPT from years earlier, but it's nice to have a printed document stating their position, more recently (2016). The Icon does not use any Velcro at all. It just folds into a channel and the end of the RSL tucks up into and behind the container material under the risers similar to how Mirage and a few other companies terminates their RSL right before the shackle. I could see how 8" of Velcro would make it hard to pull out the cutaway cable. However, simply making the Y lanyard longer relative to the RSL's total length will do an even better job without the side effects of Velcro. If the Y lanyard was longer, the entire load would be transferred to the RSL shackle instead of the collins' lanyard.

Here is another try: https://i.imgur.com/MOfm5Gx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/SFwMnR5.jpg I did not have much trouble cutting away the left side riser by pulling on the reserve bridle with the Skyhook still attached. This rig had a DOM of 2018 and uses the Y lanyard RSL discussed earlier.

Ive had brand new UPT vectors come without a staging loop, upon contacting UPT to find out why. They sent a reply that it was only recommended on tandem and larger canopy containers and hence thats why it was not included. They specifically did not like it being called a hesitator loop. For UPT, aerodyne - the use of this elastic loop is optional. ( https://www.flyaerodyne.com/...ual052017_online.pdf) Page 25. As a friend of mine is a rigger at UPT, they told me that they don't pack most container with the staging loop. The wording of the reply from the manufacturer and the actions meant I now don't pack using the staging loop for most sport rigs. What is the reasoning for not using it? It seems like it exposes the user to a pretty serious risk. What happens if they get into a canopy collision down low and deploy the reserve while still under a main? At low speed the RPC may not inflate and then we are in this left-side riser cutaway situation.

It appears that the Y lanyard does not eliminate this issue. This photo is from a rig with a DOM of 2018 and I was easily able to extract the left side cutaway cable entirely by pulling on the reserve bridle. I tried wearing the rig and I had someone else pull on it. Same result. Here is a photo: https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=501577663455 The staging loop does not seem to take much force to remove. It seems to take even less force to remove than the RSL. It seems like a possibly better option would be to just make the Y portion of the RSL lanyard longer so that the freebag cannot weight the collins' lanyard. Why doesent the manufacturer do that instead?

So basically the inadvertent cutaway via the collins lanyard could happen anytime the jumper is under a fully inflated main and for whatever reason they deploy the reserve? That makes me think twice about a possible canopy transfer in my bag of tricks should I ever need it. It also brings into question the safety of the general rule of malfunctions under 1000' are treated by deploying your reserve without cutting away. However, I would think that if you were to deploy your reserve while under canopy the launching of the PC would disconnect the Skyhook regardless of whether the PC inflates or not. That's the intended function.

Contact the container manufacturer. They have tested a variety of mains and reserves and can tell you what fits and what does not.

How does the reserve freebag being deployed cause the collins' lanyard to retract? Did the Skyhook yank the RSL/ collins' lanyard out or something? Normally they are separate and unrelated systems.

There is a guy at my DZ that uses a Fusion on his helmet. It looks like an entanglement just waiting to happen...

That does not seem like an accurate way to determine it. For example, does building a $1M Ferrari produce 50x more carbon than a $20k Honda? Probably not even close.

I would like to see the Flysight data on that. I know a few professional wingsuiters who admitted to me they couldent even gain altitude in an S3. Just because it feels like you're going up does not necessarily mean you are. You need to confirm with a GPS.

For what it is worth, I got a demo WinX canopy with 30 jumps on it and compared it to a Pilot 7 with about 250 jumps on it. In that state, they are basically the same in terms of pack volume. Regarding the openings, I find that the WinX opens a bit faster than the P7. The P7 tends to snivel quite a lot where as the WinX does not. I am not sure that I would want to use the WinX on a lot of terminal jumps without a larger slider. It's really more of a wingsuit canopy. The flare is similar between the two, although the brake lines on the P7 are shorter than the WinX, so I might not be comparing apples to apples. The flare on both is good enough to land, but not as good as a modern 9 cell (about 80% of something like a Sabre 2 or Safire 2/3). The glide in the WinX is slightly more flat than the P7 it seems like, but not massively different. Both have reasonably good glide. The WinX does fall slightly short of the P7 in turbulence. It gets bucked around petty good when it gets choppy out. The P7 is not a superstar in turbulence either, but probably slightly better it seems. Both provide good openings that are consistently on heading with wingsuit jumps. The main difference between the two is just that the WinX opens faster, where as the P7 is soft and snively. Beyond that they are similar in most regards.

I believe so, but dont quote me on it. I think anyone with an instructional rating above coach is authorized to conduct an A license check dive. The IRM would be the place to look or email the USPA.