So what particular characteristic does this canopy have that makes it so dangerous compared to a say a comp velo 71 that has no such restrictions? Is this any different to what PD has done for years? (Sponsor top pilots and supply them with the latest canopy/line set/rds) Judging from the serial numbers of my comp velos, I would imagine there is such a small market for these canopies that there is no money to be made selling them to the public anyway.
you might argue that the "dealer" implicitly gives the reference when placing the order.
I'm intrigued by the idea of applying technology from high aspect ratio gliders/paragliders to relatively low aspect ratio, pressurised wings. I'd imagine its taken a lot of work to get the Peregrine and Petra to inflate nicely and maintain pressure at low speed. maybe the rule is fly it fast!
(This post was edited by RichLees on Jan 25, 2013, 9:04 AM)
So what particular characteristic does this canopy have that makes it so dangerous compared to a say a comp velo 71 that has no such restrictions? Is this any different to what PD has done for years? (Sponsor top pilots and supply them with the latest canopy/line set/rds) Judging from the serial numbers of my comp velos, I would imagine there is such a small market for these canopies that there is no money to be made selling them to the public anyway.
It is nice a thing that they are willing to sell to some selected and qualified people outside of PD Factory team.
I remember reading somewhere that with R&D factored in and the extra production complexity, the comp velo was effectively sold at a loss, at the last world meet I attended there were just over 100 competitors in total, so not such a big market at all.
Perhaps to create perceived brand value through exclusivity is a better strategy as that perceived value applies to all the other products sold in volume.
I dont believe that all the pilots who have been jumping, training and competing for years on velos, then comp velos or even JVXs are all of a sudden rendered unqualified to fly this new wing, and find the implication insulting and patronising.
I have never had a problem with the factory team and other selected pilots competing on experimental wings and technology, as once the testing was completed to a high standard, it then filtered down to the rest of us.
I think this new strategy by PD to create a two tier system is a real shame.
I just hope the NZ Aerosports Petra is made more widely available when released, as im not in danger of winning a world championship any time soon to be having PD offer me the chance to spend my cash with them.
dont believe that all the pilots who have been jumping, training and competing for years on velos, then comp velos or even JVXs are all of a sudden rendered unqualified to fly this new wing, and find the implication insulting and patronising.
Neither does PD. Which is why those pilots, if performing well and safely, are getting invites to try out the wing. It's not like only the top 5 pilots in the world are going to gain access to them. I already know of quite a few people who've been contacted.
Quote:
I think this new strategy by PD to create a two tier system is a real shame.
I think you're mistaking the intent of the current policy.
Just curious if the skills and technique required to fly a comp Velo at its peak translate to the Peregrine? Can you reveal some of the primary differences in flight characteristics?
I dont believe that all the pilots who have been jumping, training and competing for years on velos, then comp velos or even JVXs are all of a sudden rendered unqualified to fly this new wing, and find the implication insulting and patronising.
You're assuming that those pilots can all fly their current wings to 100% of their capability.
Let's say the new canopy is 10% better then the Comp Velo. That might not seem like alot, but when you're out at the far end of the performance spectrum, the gains are harder to come by, so 10% would be a good step up.
So you have a canopy that's 10% better, so unless you can get 90% or better out of the new canopy, you might as well just fly a Comp Velo, and keep working toward that 100%. Unless you're already maxed on the Comp Velo, a faster canopy is just a waste of fabric.
The other side of the coin is that once you distill the market down so far, like they did by building an 'ultra-ultra-high-performance canopy', the idea of 'marketing' goes right out the window. You're never, flat out never, going to sell enough of these to make putting them into production a profitable venture. Think about it, the Perregrine requires the same number of patterns, same line-set specs and diagrams, same operator training to build, same mountain of paperwork behind it as any other canopy they build. Sure, a Sabre 2 might be half the price of what they would charge for a Peregrine, but they're going to sell 10x or 20x (or more) S2's than Peregrines.
So why not keep a lid on it? Think that's different than any other competitive arena? Race cars, golf clubs, skiis, running shoes, etc. all feature 'pro' gear that only the sponsored althletes can get their hands on. At least in this instancce, they're willing to consider sending some of the canopies 'outside the family', which is better than we've ever got out of them in the past. How many different versions of the Velo do you think we never got our hands on, while the PD Team guys were using them to win big?
How many different versions of the Velo do you think we never got our hands on, while the PD Team guys were using them to win big?
Kinda brings to mind the idea of a NASCAR swooping comp, doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be fun to see what everyone can do on the same wing? Even if it was just an informal 'fun' gig, maybe like a scrambles meet where the canopy is drawn by lot on the say, I'd pay beer to watch that...
OK - today everyone's on a Pulse 135! Accuracy, Distance and Freestyle! Go to it!
Let's say the new canopy is 10% better then the Comp Velo. That might not seem like alot, but when you're out at the far end of the performance spectrum, the gains are harder to come by, so 10% would be a good step up.
So you have a canopy that's 10% better, so unless you can get 90% or better out of the new canopy, you might as well just fly a Comp Velo, and keep working toward that 100%. Unless you're already maxed on the Comp Velo, a faster canopy is just a waste of fabric.
So lets say you could fly 100m on your comp velo in some weather, but you only go 90m. With the peregrine you could go 110m, but since you are not so skilled you only fly it at 90% and get 99m. So without improving your skills at all you get 9 meters longer. Is that really such a waste of fabric? Can't you keep improving your skills on the peregrine or do you stop improving once you change canopy? If you just improve 1% you would get further when you ever could with the comp velo in this imaginary scenario. Would that be a waste of fabric?
If we follow your reasoning to the absurd, why should anyone fly a comp velo or even a velo? I doubt very few people has flown any canopy at 100%, least of all many times in a row, so perhaps we should all stay on a navigator or perhaps the good old manta? No?
If we follow your reasoning to the absurd, why should anyone fly a comp velo or even a velo?
Forget absurd, how about to reality? As mentioned, when the 97/107 sized Stilettos first came out, you needed a 'solid' reccomendation and you had sigtn a 'small canopy' waiver. The community wasn't ready for that much performance with no restrictions.
Likewise with the Comp Velo, they weren't that easy to get your hands on in the first place. Truth be told, the PD Team jumped versions of the Comp Velo for years before they were let loose on the general public. Even then, they were deemed to be just one step up from a Velo, and that 'people' could handle that without restriction.
Now we have the Peregrine (well, we don't have it, but some people do). Isn't there a chance that it's more canopy that everyone is thinking it is, and that it's probably not a good idea just to cut it loose to the general public? Again, look at cars and motorcylces, the factories all have racing teams with hardware that nobody else can get their hands on, and levels of performance that require a 'pro' to handle with any degree of safety.
So lets say you could fly 100m on your comp velo in some weather, but you only go 90m. With the peregrine you could go 110m, but since you are not so skilled you only fly it at 90% and get 99m. So without improving your skills at all you get 9 meters longer. Is that really such a waste of fabric? Can't you keep improving your skills on the peregrine or do you stop improving once you change canopy? If you just improve 1% you would get further when you ever could with the comp velo in this imaginary scenario. Would that be a waste of fabric?
If we follow your reasoning to the absurd, why should anyone fly a comp velo or even a velo? I doubt very few people has flown any canopy at 100%, least of all many times in a row, so perhaps we should all stay on a navigator or perhaps the good old manta? No?
Or you can dig a bigger crater. Who says that you can fly it also at 90%?
When the velo just came out, I have seen several skydivers who thought that they were able to fly a velo. After some landings, they learned the lesson and sold it. Do not forget that a "higher" performance canopy, is inherent more demanding, more agressive and more dangerous.
A formula 1 race-car is not suited neither for very experienced drivers, only for some highly trained, very skilled ... , on a racetrack.
When I got my first x braced canopy, my average distances in nill wind went up from 80m to 95m, when I changed to a comp velo they went to 108m and that was straight out of the box, no difference in technique at all, the canopy simply had a little more. I have no reason to assume my average distances would not be greater on this new wing.
I don't think that it is possible to fly your currently wing at 100% max potential all the time, a good target and sound advice, yes but achievable, no. It's just not possible even for professionals.
I don't like the Formula 1 or NASCAR analogy as there are no amateur teams in either of those sports.
At any world meet of canopy piloting the vast majority of competitors are not professionals, just passionate amateurs, and IMO are mostly experienced enough to fly this wing in a safe manner.
(This post was edited by matt002 on Jan 29, 2013, 5:26 AM)
I really commend PD for this!! At nationals last year there was a survey that competitors could take the time to fill out. If you read the comments most felt like the PD team and the test pilots for the Petra had an advantage using the new wings since they were not released. So PD is trying to do its best to answer this complaint while keeping competitive swooping as safe as they can keep it.
I just hope for those that are qualifited the lead time is short enough that they can get it soon enough to be a factor in 2013 because the season starts in a week.
Lets not forget a few things. 1. With all of the focus on people killing themselves under perfectly good canopies if there is all of the sudden a rash of accidents that is bound to happen under a new wing sold to the general public there wont be any more competitions anyway and the complete market goes away.
2. At least PD has taken this step with their prototype. I don’t see an order form for the Petra made public either and Nick has been competing of that longer than the PD boys were competing on their Prototype.
3. This canopy is not made for beer line swoopers. If you want one the process is quite simple. Go to www.swoopleague.com and register for the FLCPA circuit. When you get there prove that your skills can take this sport up another level rather than down two levels and I am quite sure someone will notice.
PS. I have been checking my mailbox and my invite has not come either. HMMM, maybe I have work to do?
I don't like the Formula 1 or NASCAR analogy as there are no amateur teams in either of those sports.
Its also a rather bad analogy from a technical point of view as those cars are designed according to specific race rules that not only prevent the ultimate performance, but also make the cars harder to drive. Street legal cars with more power are available for anyone with enough cash and they can be driven by your average millionaire.
But it is an interesting move by PD. They take responsibility away from the buyer. So what happens when someone still dies under a peregrine? Is there a happy lawyer that claim they encouraged the jumper to get a too fast canopy by approaching him with the offer? Or that they were negligent when they didn't use the same power to prevent someone from buying a velo?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 29, 2013, 6:54 AM
Post #32 of 156
(2613 views)
Shortcut
Just curious if the skills and technique required to fly a comp Velo at its peak translate to the Peregrine? Can you reveal some of the primary differences in flight characteristics?
Looks like a very different wing.
From what I have heard (and clearly I am nowhere near flying one of these things) they open hard and are trimmed extremely steep.
Initiation altitudes have to go way up for the same degree of turn. I don't know if they require a dramatically different technique to max out.
One PDFT member told me that they wanted the HnP altitudes for swoop comps to be raised due to how much altitude is lost during the normal post-opening housekeeping. What was fine with a Comp Velo is barely enough altitude for a Peregrine.
I don't know anything about riser pressure, but I have heard that they have a two-step rear riser control. Step one is to plane out the wing and then when you think you might need to go to toggles you can give it a little bit more with the Peregrine and it will keep flying without compromising the toggle response.
Again this is second-hand info and I am not sure if Ian feels able to comment on the above statements, but clearly he is best placed to do so.
Regarding the restricted market. I am all for it and I think that anyone who complains about and wants one should get on the CP circuit and earn one.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 29, 2013, 7:44 AM
Post #34 of 156
(2583 views)
Shortcut
Can't comment on that, but of course higher loadings = faster descent rate.
Quote:
Initiation altitudes have to go way up for the same degree of turn.
Yes.
Quote:
One PDFT member told me that they wanted the HnP altitudes for swoop comps to be raised due to how much altitude is lost during the normal post-opening housekeeping. What was fine with a Comp Velo is barely enough altitude for a Peregrine.
Not sure if higher altitudes are the answer. It might be more tricky to have 4 Peregrines on the same pass - time will tell if any changes are needed in this area
Quote:
I don't know anything about riser pressure, but I have heard that they have a two-step rear riser control.
Disagree. Same rear riser rules apply as always. There's a lot more "power" in them but functionally nothing is changing there. Timings, of course, are different but I wouldn't define it in 'stages'
There's a difference between stacking the odds against an incident vs pretending like an incident won't happen because of the criteria.
The bottom line is that not everyone is going to be happy but EVERYONE has an avenue to get one. Whether they do or not is up to them.
Ian
Yes, I expressed myself a bit poorly there. What I meant is that PD does assume some responsibility in choosing who will have the opportunity to buy the canopy. The buyer can of course decline to buy it if approached.
There are a lot of good swoopers who do not compete at all. The fact is the CP circuit is not the easiest to access for people who reside north of Florida. PD can obviously do whatever they want with their products, maybe it is a sign of progress, the times etc, but I am not sure that limiting access to this wing is going to have any material effect on canopy related fatalities/injuries.
Looks like the result of some new advances in the design of the wing / trim / material to handle the additional loading, dive like a mofo, give the rears more power ... and still open like a PD product.
California will also have canopy piloting competitions that PD watches very closely.
So, i don't think you have to move to Florida. But...I do think you have to compete Regionally and/or Nationally. The intent of this canopy is that its a dedicated competition canopy...so if you aren't competing, there is really no reason to have one.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 31, 2013, 2:40 PM
Post #42 of 156
(2227 views)
Shortcut
Somebody made a point about people wanting to "raise hop and pop altitudes' for swoop comps. Do any of you remember the genesis of why that is?
Prior to competitors routinely jumping RDS in meets, we all exited in passes of four broken down by (generally) by team and in wingload order from highest to lowest so that nobody "stacked up" and got cut off. Being able to maintain stack discipline is a basic skill that anyone competing ought to be able to manage.
Once RDS systems started showing up more and more in competitions, some people with heavier wingloads (and RDS systems) where whining that they ought to be able to exit last because they took so long to remove, roll-up, and stow their shit. It became a problem in meets because then, after getting their shit stowed, they would encroach on the lower-wingloaded guys who had already set up the stack and then people would bitch because they got "cut off" or "couldn't get to their turn initiation point due to traffic. Whining and rejumps followed.
Once pretty much everyone on the Pro-side of the events started using full RDS in competition then the exit problems SHOULD have ended as peoiple then SHOULD have started exiting in wingload order with no exceptions. It's definitely not rocket science: on a pass of four the first guy takes like a ten second delay, second a bit less, third a bit less, and the last guy out dumps out the door. THAT is how the stack sets itself up. It's your job as a competitor to maintain stack discipline and land in order without hosing your buddies. Did it fix it? Nope. People still bitch(ed) because they all want to dump straight out the door and have the most time possible to stow, wait for everyone else to get out of the way, then get that perfect setup. Lots of buddy fucking going on because people are afraid to take their canopies on a ten second delay.....Odd.
I cannot imagine that any promoter is ever going to talk a DZ into dropping down to two a pass to decrease traffic. Two reasons: gas costs and the amount of time it would add to the event. I also seriously doubt you are going to get a DZO to give you more than five grand for hop and pop prices. Jesus, I can't count the times at meets where we got 4000 feet and just had to get it done.
Ok, terminal is a Big secret . Lets start with subterminal opening video, WL 3.0+ !
Quote:
Everything about the Peregrine (line, fabric, aerodynamics, etc.) has been optimized for maximum flight performance, and (only) for the sub terminal deployments used in canopy piloting competitions.
No big secret, per PD as quoted above from their website, emphasis is mine.
Skydivers are known to not always follow the recommendations of the manufactures. Per PD, the RDS system is not approved for terminal openings, nor are the lightest hma lines (at last check anyway) but finding video of those is not difficult. edit-redneck grammar
(This post was edited by Zlew on Feb 5, 2013, 5:56 PM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 5, 2013, 6:20 PM
Post #52 of 156
(1871 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, considering he was the one that got his hands on a Petra in 2011, took it to Florida (having been told specifically not to), saving PD years and many thousands of dollars in R & D.
[source:] an informed one.
(This post was edited by swoopin on Feb 6, 2013, 1:38 AM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 6, 2013, 6:15 AM
Post #54 of 156
(1745 views)
Shortcut
I'm not really interested in allowing brand wars to develop here, nor tinfoil hat conspiracies.
Your insinuations are incorrect.
Ian
It comes down to who you know and what your interests are really.
You are PDFT, you don't want brand wars obviously. This is not brand wars, this is a discussion on the Peregrine.
Having new canopies on the market is great, good for everyone, but the facts remain so I will refute your accusations as I am only passing information, not making things up.
What I 'KNOW' is that I was involved in a conversation with people, that I will not name, that have knowledge of a Petra being flown to Florida when the individual was specifically instructed not to do so. I respect those people very much so do not insinuate they are lying without explaining please. It is quite possible it could have happened without your knowledge.
You are also a moderator of this website as well as a PDFT member, so I will ask you this in all honesty;
Are you willing to confirm that the Peregrine was a result of comprehensive research and development from PD alone or was it something that came up all of a sudden in 2011?
I also understand from other conversations with other individuals that the sudden emergence of the 'Petrocity' and the limited access to it from those other than Jay caused a little tension in the PDFT. This I cannot confirm this for sure as the source is less reliable in the sense that it is 2nd hand knowledge rather than first hand, but it seems very plausible based on the other information I have.
The reason I mention it is it reiterates how little knowledge anyone had of the R & D program and because you should have knowledge of whether this is the case or not so you should be able to confirm whether or not it is true.
Without any of this information anyhow it still seems peculiar that the airfoil design results of R&D from two separate companies would end up as similar as these two wings with all the variables to consider.
Attached is a photographic comparison of Petra and the very first PD prototype 9 cell, cross braced canopy in competition (3DPIC 2011).
Can you say, on the record, that the Peregrine is not a result of plagiarism?
Not trying to start a war, just adding to the conversation. This is a forum after all and not an advertisement.
(This post was edited by swoopin on Feb 6, 2013, 4:45 PM)
I tend to believe the person who is willing to put their name behind what they have to say. In this case, Ian. Don't name your "sources" if you don't want to, but who are you?
P.S. the mods most likely know who you are. They have your IP address. That can be used with very little effort to find out much more info.
I tend to believe the person who is willing to put their name behind what they have to say. In this case, Ian. Don't name your "sources" if you don't want to, but who are you?
I tend to believe common sense and what I observe. Discussing the subject is usually more productive than questioning the integrity of a poster. Who I am, is far less interesting than what I am saying. What I am saying is actually known and discussed by a few. A PD factory team member even referred to his canopy as a 'Petrocity' for laughs when we were in Dubai.
It's just common sense really, provided no copyrights are infringed then why not take a look at a proven example before staring work on your own version, much cheaper and quicker. There will no doubt be small changes made on the final design.
I have a friend in the jumpsuit business, the staring point for every design will be examining a proven example first, sometimes it will be disassembled too.
I liked the way NZ Aerosports released the R&D video of the prototype test jumps and different designs that eventually became the Petra. No question who put the legwork into this new generation of wing.
The Schuemann wing planform is not new and was not invented for the Petra.
PD was working on this kind of wing shape back in the 80s, but shelved it for some reason to which I am not privy.
I don't know why there has to always be a conspiracy theory - a competitive environment between parachute companies is the fertile ground from which product improvement grows.
PD was working on this kind of wing shape back in the 80s, but shelved it for some reason to which I am not privy.
Oh so the peregrine has nothing to do with the emergence of the Petra. gotcha.
At least Aerosports admit they used PD's technology (Excalibur) to develop the Icarus extreme project.
In reply to:
I don't know why there has to always be a conspiracy theory - a competitive environment between parachute companies is the fertile ground from which product improvement grows.
Not a conspiracy, it is how it happened simple.
Imitation is the best form of flattery. This whole thing is terrific for everyone including all canopy companies.
It is quite amusing to see people deny that that the Peregrine has anything to do with the Petra.
'Conspiracy theory' seems to be a weak excuse for; "I want you to be wrong, but cannot or do not want to explain why", these days.
(This post was edited by swoopin on Feb 7, 2013, 12:14 PM)
Lol. I post a true observation on a public forum. Get called a liar a conspiracy nut (by a moderator no less) and all of a sudden I am the one with sour grapes?
No wonder this site is referred to as dork zone.
Lets see what Ian has to say to my questions. He is the one that insinuated I was making things up. Now he has to decide if if wants to appease the minions here or keep his integrity among others in the swooping community that also know what I have stated.
Tough call huh..?
(This post was edited by swoopin on Feb 7, 2013, 5:18 PM)
Lol. I post a true observation on a public forum. Get called a liar a conspiracy nut (by a moderator no less) and all of a sudden I am the one with sour grapes?
Well, the guys jumping those canopies are guys I've drank beer with, swooped with and competed with and they don't agree with you, but you won't even say who you are...so who am I to believe?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 7, 2013, 6:41 PM
Post #70 of 156
(1175 views)
Shortcut
Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I seriously doubt that there's anything I could say that would satisfy your incorrect, and incomplete view of the events. That's ok.
I would encourage you to visit PD sometime and take a tour, if you're lucky you may run into John and get some conversation time and you can ask him some of your questions then. Maybe you'll be even luckier and he'll divulge some timeline and R&D info to you.
I've never taken it to terminal. 5-6 secs has been the longest. Opened quick but great.
Ian
Still interesting to see some opening video, don't interesting in brand's wars. Trying to convince some crazy friends that they doesn't need try to buy Peregrine for every day swooping Some of them telling: "PD will selling it to us, just matter of time, maybe next year"
(This post was edited by dima39 on Feb 7, 2013, 9:52 PM)
Actually you could easily satisfy by stating whether or not you were aware of any significant R & D of the peregrine prior to the 3DPIC comp. As I previously requested.
I am reasonably certain there was not and the canopy was simply copied a changed a little. A covert xerox mission if you will. You are obviously avoiding such a statement to save face as it will be on the record.
It need not have come to this but you are the one that delivered personal insults therefore prompting my clarification and questions.
I have been to the PD factory (impressive), I have also had a discussion with John in recent history (nice guy, cool plane)...
The facts still remain, Petra was taken to Florida by Curt, he was specifically told not to, and very shortly after Jay is competing on a very similar though less advanced copy.
Once again I believe it is a good thing for most in the end, but that is how I believe it went down based on my observations. Shit I may well be incorrect but you are not making it look that way.
You can call me all you like I find it amusing, but I believe you will continue to refrain from stating whether or not there was in fact a comprehensive (PD style ) R&D program for this canopy for, obvious reasons.
That is all I have to offer the conversation at this point. No point in doing the scratched record thing when you side step the facts and I predict you will continue to avoid the answers to those questions so I will leave it at that.
Toodles.
(This post was edited by swoopin on Feb 8, 2013, 1:25 AM)
Heard the same thing as Swoopin last year i.e that PD were given a JPX. Doesn't mean the Peregrine is a copy even if the above statement is true and who cares, i put the skill of the pilot way before the canopy. We could all go and purchase a Comp Velo or a JVX or just about anything else for that matter but owning something doesn't equate to skill and i applaud PD in limiting who can fly the Peregrine to the guys/girls who have proven themselves in the competition arena.
In effect, PD are continuing to ensure that the guys on the podium are flying PD canopies(and now paying for the privilege), pretty easy to do in the past as the Factory Team were so far ahead of the game in competitive CP. Not so easy in the last few years as the standards have improved.
I don't buy the safety angle, I've been flying very small speed wings that use a similar planform the last few years, much better low speed lift.
Clever marketing, tho.
(This post was edited by matt002 on Feb 8, 2013, 2:02 AM)
Matt not every wannabe has the skill to fly their current canopy let alone the next level. Look at one of the incidents from last year, guy with 300 jumps pounds in with a velo for example.
Marketing is marketing, not that PD needs to raise brand awareness, but as a generalisation i think people like to associate themselves with the leaders through brands. Renault Williams does well in F1 lets all go and drive a piece of crap Clio, oh look at me i wear Primani underpants.
Matt not every wannabe has the skill to fly their current canopy let alone the next level. Look at one of the incidents from last year, guy with 300 jumps pounds in with a velo for example.
Marketing is marketing, not that PD needs to raise brand awareness, but as a generalisation i think people like to associate themselves with the leaders through brands. Renault Williams does well in F1 lets all go and drive a piece of crap Clio, oh look at me i wear Primani underpants.
By that logic then, do you not think the standard velo should be subject to the same restrictions?
Perhaps the market for that wing is large enough that there is some profit to be make selling that to the 'public'?
I didn't compete last year but would be disappointed if the sport became more about the gear you have access to rather than the passion you put into your training. The perigee has very clear and obvious advantage in the distance event, it's not like before where the comp velo had a very slight advantage. It has the potential to create a big split in the results table.
I was under the impression it was if you buy from a reputable dealer. I've brought canopies in the where the seller has asked for proof of experience prior to sale, however sadly in the 2nd hand market proof of money is often the only requirement.
In the case of "petra" it looks like PD is more like a chinese company than an american one.
the peregrine looks like/is a 100% copy of nz aerosports petra. not illegal, fine. I'd go for the original one and support nz aerosports (not saying that I'd fly such a canopy within the next couple of years).
Brought a 109 XF2 from Matt @ Hinton who responsibly imo asked for proof of experience prior to sale. He could have sold it sooner if he was a no questions asked type. Though the seller of my JVX didn't ask for proof i did state my experience prior to purchase so possibly saved him the bother.
I personnally prefer Matts approach to resale after all you wouldn't give a monkey a loaded gun would you.
Every canopy I've sold I have called out to the buyer's DZ and chatted with the S&TA or someone of similar experience to make sure the person should have that canopy. It takes a little effort, but if the person buying the canopy has any experience at all, they tend to understand and appreciate it.
Every canopy I've sold I have called out to the buyer's DZ and chatted with the S&TA or someone of similar experience to make sure the person should have that canopy.
Whoa ... you start doing that and soon the government will step in and monitor, regulate, control or restrict this private transaction. Best keep this strictly between buyer and seller.
the peregrine looks like/is a 100% copy of nz aerosports petra.
You say this based on what? The fact that they're both built of nylon, are rough;y rectangular, and have lines attaching them to the risers?
Along that same logic, I could say that a Jetta is a straight cospy of a Civic. They both have 4 wheels, an engine in the front, and steer via a circualr wheel located by one of the front seats, no?
Unless you have studied the patterns and construction manual for both canopies, you don't know what you're talking about.
Much like the car example, the exact shape the individual parts can make a big difference. An economy tire and a race tire are very silimar, with the only difference being the size and rubber compound. The exact shape of the wing and material used makes a legitimate difference, and is enough to make the two canopies 'different' unless they are exactly the same.
The construction is another story. The original x-brace, the Excalibur, was a great canopy but it was too hard to build them efficiently and turn a profit. Brian Germain ran into the same problem with his Sensei, it was x-braced and airlocked, and too complicated to build to make sense (and a great canopy from what I heard). The point is that just being able to put a canopy together is an achievement in itself. So again, unless the contruction manual was included with the Petra that PD 'stole', and they followed it step-by-step, then PD did the work of figuring how to build their own wing.
Let's get real people, parachutes are all very similar. Every one on the market to today is a ram-air style wing, with a slider and lineset, all looking very similar to the Cruise Lite I used to jump as a student. What's different? The size, shape, material specs, and construction technuiques are new, but the basic 'platform' is the same.
Want to prove that PD stole something? Show that the patterns, materials, and construction techniques are exactly the same, and then you have an argument. Short of that, it's just the nature of the beast.
It's always the same manner here on DZ. A guy with lots of jumps and many years of experience (not saying that it doesn't might be a big bonus in many cases) is showing up and puts dozens of lines togehter to prove that others must be wrong. Then the "war" starts and the whole thread is just worthless.
Again, it is my opinion. I do believe that PD copied petra. I might be wrong but common sense tells me an other story.
You're right, I don't have the two canopies with me to compare it. Would be interesting to know what a guy tells you who jumped both canopies. Then again, look at the attached picture in the thread and tell me they are not very very similar (besides the colour and the jumpers).
Similar like comparing a jetta and a civic!?!? I would accept that point of view when comparing a navigator 260 and a xf 129.
It's always the same manner here on DZ. A guy with lots of jumps and many years of experience (not saying that it doesn't might be a big bonus in many cases) is showing up and puts dozens of lines togehter to prove that others must be wrong.
My jump numbers or experience are not a factor here. I haven't jumped or even seen either one in person, so I'm just going off of common sense.
Again, let's use the tire example. A car guy would know the differences between a wide, sticky, high performance tire, and one for an economy car. To a chick (for the most part), they're both just 'tires', round, black, and they belong on a car. What it comes down to is the techincal and very specific differences between the two that set them apart.
So looking at the two canopies, without knowledge of the technical aspects of the two, you cannot make the sort of judgement that you're making. Well, you can, but logic is not on your side.
Let's really 'look' at them, in the side-by-side pic that was posted. Here's what I see as 'different'
- The leading egde of the upper skin on the Petra comes down to a point in between the cells, while the PD canopy (not sure if it's a Peregrine) has the upper/lower skins meet in a horizontal line.
- The cell openings on the Petra are a symetrical diamond/oval shape, while the PD canopy cell openings are curved along the lower edge and more triangular along the upper edge.
-The side of the Petra looks to be a straight line, and meets the tail in a sharp 90 degree corner, while the PD canopy appears to 'bulge' along the side toward the tail, and the rear corner is more rounded than 'square'.
So there are three difference right there, and we're still not talking about the patterns, materials, and internal construction.
Just for shits and giggles, let's take the Sabre2 and the Pilot, two canopies that are aimed at the same market segment and that have never been called copies of one another. What are the differences between the two?
Again, it is my opinion. I do believe that PD copied petra. I might be wrong but common sense tells me an other story.
this is why they named it (american accent) PetraGrinder(/american accent)... It was to take a piss in the Velocity Xterminator I concurr that they LOOK a lot like eachother. now to say that it is a chinese copy... At least admit it is an american copy
I've seen the "little" differences on the picture. PD has the skills and hopefully the will to improve the design.
It will be interesting to see the results on competitions and what pilots will tell who've flown both.
I wouldn't call a pilot and a sabre2 similar. not by its looks nor how they fly. They open differently, have a different recovery arc and the flare is not comparable. This is a whole different story than the PD/NZ Petra/Peregrine.
Piisfish I know the story about the VelocityEXterminator ;) And yes...we can call it "american copy" or even better "APS=Advanced Parachute Manufacture" because they sure improved some areas...
I wouldn't call a pilot and a sabre2 similar. not by its looks nor how they fly. They open differently, have a different recovery arc and the flare is not comparable. This is a whole different story than the PD/NZ Petra/Peregrine
You say this based on knowledge of the openings and flight characteristics of both the Petra and Peregrine?
Again, the S2 and Pilot are quite simialr. Both 9-cell, non x-brace, both semi-eliptical, both ZP, both offered with simialr line types, both aimed at the beginer/intermediate jumper. Of coruse, you see them as different because of opening or flight characteristics.
What is you point? Do you feel happy if you can or try to put people in the corner? Is it all about being right in any case?
Calm down and accept that others have different opinions (even you think they might be wrong). You write posts like you'd be above all else. Using simple examples to explain something might help in some cases but sometimes you try to look others like complete fools.
We know that the pilot and s2 are different in many aspects. We don't know yet about petra and peregrine.
I am out of this discussion. Have fun and be kind to each other.
I didn't compete last year but would be disappointed if the sport became more about the gear you have access to rather than the passion you put into your training. The perigee has very clear and obvious advantage in the distance event, it's not like before where the comp velo had a very slight advantage. It has the potential to create a big split in the results table.
I think this thought of Matt is worth reading again!
What I´d like to add is that I like the fact that there are safetyconcerns of the manufacturer if it comes to a product that most of the times is "operated" at loadings above 3. Only the requirements to be cleared to get access to the product might be more precise? I guess being asked for proof of experience with ultrahighloadings (XRW?) in addition to proof of certain speedtimes and performance- or competitionclassdistances would be widely accepted...
Point of order: you posted hearsay. Someone told you that someone else did something that someone else had apparently told them they shouldn't have done. It's not cast iron.
Point of order: you posted hearsay. Someone told you that someone else did something that someone else had apparently told them they shouldn't have done. It's not cast iron.
I posted what someone had said that has first hand knowledge. Maybe I was not clear enough, but it is not hearsay.
Point of order: you posted hearsay. Someone told you that someone else did something that someone else had apparently told them they shouldn't have done. It's not cast iron.
I posted what someone had said that has first hand knowledge. Maybe I was not clear enough, but it is not hearsay.
That story you just posted? That's the definition of hearsay.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
You have no direct experience in the matter, you're just passing on third hand information.
I could care less about swooping or cross braced canopies, but reading this thread is hilarious. Those two canopies look vitually identical, and if they were developed without any knowledge of the other, i would be shocked beyond belief.
The tire comparison would be like two people on opposite side of the world coming up with the exact same tire dimensions, tread pattern, and measurements. Not exactly apples to oranges comparison people are trying to make it.
It happens in the BASE world which I am very familiar when people straight copy designs. I just think its funny that people are saying "no theres no way possible, that could never happen!". It happens.
I could care less about swooping or cross braced canopies, but reading this thread is hilarious. Those two canopies look vitually identical, and if they were developed without any knowledge of the other, i would be shocked beyond belief.
The tire comparison would be like two people on opposite side of the world coming up with the exact same tire dimensions, tread pattern, and measurements. Not exactly apples to oranges comparison people are trying to make it.
Yeah, that photograph in page 2 of the thread speaks volumes.
I just don't see how anyone can look at that photograph and say that PD just happened to come up with a design that is essentially identical.
Point of order: you posted hearsay. Someone told you that someone else did something that someone else had apparently told them they shouldn't have done. It's not cast iron.
I posted what someone had said that has first hand knowledge. Maybe I was not clear enough, but it is not hearsay.
That story you just posted? That's the definition of hearsay.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
You have no direct experience in the matter, you're just passing on third hand information.
Fair enough, let's put that aside.
Now, look at that photographic comparison that was posted earlier in the thread - what do you say to that?
Yeah, that photograph in page 2 of the thread speaks volumes.
I just don't see how anyone can look at that photograph and say that PD just happened to come up with a design that is essentially identical.
This is like when people figured out that the Katana and the Samurai were very similar in shape and design (minus the obvious airlocks). The truth finally came out after a little while and PD came clean...
that the Katana was a design evolution from a previous first generation design from Brian Germain they had purchased the rights to and developed. During the same time Germain continued to refrain his previous design and look what happened. Although I had never jumped a Sam with the comp lineset, I understand that it flew similarly to the Katana.
All black canopies out of black helicopters at night, secret developments...so the theories go.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 11, 2013, 5:36 AM
Post #102 of 156
(2103 views)
Shortcut
Point of order: you posted hearsay. Someone told you that someone else did something that someone else had apparently told them they shouldn't have done. It's not cast iron.
I posted what someone had said that has first hand knowledge. Maybe I was not clear enough, but it is not hearsay.
That story you just posted? That's the definition of hearsay.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
You have no direct experience in the matter, you're just passing on third hand information.
Fair enough, let's put that aside.
Now, look at that photographic comparison that was posted earlier in the thread - what do you say to that?
To me, there are major differences in the two wings in that photo. The wing itself is differently shaped, different nose, different line attachments, different tail deflection, different end cells, different tail construction, etc
The only similarity I see is that they have a curved nose (different degrees of that it appears) and that they are a form of 9 cell. Having watched the two fly side by side in Klatovy, and Dubai they are also worlds apart in the way they fly too. Both very high performance of course, but definitely different.
Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Feb 11, 2013, 5:38 AM)
Now, look at that photographic comparison that was posted earlier in the thread - what do you say to that?
I say you should learn how to read. I listed some differences that you could easily see from the pics in a post upthread. The visual differences are not counting any of the things you can't see from the pics, like exact measurements, material specs and internal construction.
All restate this again, how different do you exepct two canopies in the same class to be?
How different is a Velo from a JVX or FX or Xoas 21?
How about a Pliot and a Sabre2? They're both 9 cell, semi-eilpitical, ZP canopies aimed at beginner to intermediate jumpers. Despite being virtually indentical in their physical description, as a posted stated above, the open and fly very differenly. Why is that? Because the things that you can't see, like the exact measurements, material specs, and itnernal construction are different, resulting in a very different wing.
Nobody is pointing at those canopies as being 'rip-offs' of each other, despite the fact that each factory has unlimited access to the other wing for inspection, jumps, and measuring. But in this case, because two parachute companies come up with similar designs when trying to build a canopy for the same purpose, suddenly it's a case of plagarism, and everyone accusing the largest parachute company on earth of not being able to develop their own wing. How does that make any sense?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 11, 2013, 10:21 AM
Post #104 of 156
(2001 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't call a pilot and a sabre2 similar. not by its looks nor how they fly. They open differently, have a different recovery arc and the flare is not comparable. This is a whole different story than the PD/NZ Petra/Peregrine.
Incorrect.
Openings: Looking at Nick's video compared with my own experiences, they are different.
Recovery Arc: Hard to tell - both are definitely long "altitude wise" but optimal timing seems different. Can't say for sure as I've never jumped a Petra.
Flare: Very different from watching Nick and Curt to almost identical distance runs back to back.
I think it escapes most jumpers on how difficult it is to build a wing like this that is stable and performs as expected. The idea of looking at another design (photo, at a competition, etc) and "Copying it" is borderline laughable.
Personally I find it really sad that some people (Rhys aka "swoopin" that would be you that I am referring to) are turning something that is great for the sport as a whole (Peregrine and Petra and the advances they bring) into a misinformed pissing match.
Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Feb 11, 2013, 10:36 AM)
He's been banned from the site for a little while now. Not sure why (I'd guess Speakers Corner though).
Since the site doesn't allow multiple accounts, especially for banned people, it's safe to say that "swoopin" won't be posting here in their current form.
Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Feb 11, 2013, 11:09 AM)
that the Katana was a design evolution from a previous first generation design from Brian Germain they had purchased the rights to and developed. During the same time Germain continued to refrain his previous design and look what happened. Although I had never jumped a Sam with the comp lineset, I understand that it flew similarly to the Katana.
Having jumped a KA120 and a Sam120 with the longer lineset, I would only put them in the same class. The Sam is a good canopy, but the Katana still has better performance (harness response, dive, flare).
Something that always makes me chuckle are the comments that the light front riser pressure of the Katana breeds bad habits. Possible. But one can also learn a lot about incorporating harness input into their turns on the Katana because it is so much more responsive.
Thank you PD for continuing this evolutionary process.
Having jumped a KA120 and a Sam120 with the longer lineset, I would only put them in the same class. The Sam is a good canopy, but the Katana still has better performance (harness response, dive, flare).
Cool, guess it's sort of a moot point since the Sam isn't in production anymore and their numbers will dwindle. I say that, but you know that there is someone at a 182 DZ somewhere still toggle whip'n his Jonathan while flying a Vector 2.
In reply to:
Thank you PD for continuing this evolutionary process.
Yup! They spend an incredible amount of time and money developing the cutting edge for the sport market.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 11, 2013, 11:28 AM
Post #111 of 156
(1927 views)
Shortcut
The samurai is still being made by Brian but only a few each year.
I think what most of us really want to know is, when will the Russians make a shitty copy for half the price and when can I get one.
No, most of us are wondering when the Russias will make another swoop video like they had a couple of years ago. Not just anyone can chow and rotate into the crowd off the pond!
The samurai is still being made by Brian but only a few each year.
I think what most of us really want to know is, when will the Russians make a shitty copy for half the price and when can I get one.
No, most of us are wondering when the Russias will make another swoop video like they had a couple of years ago. Not just anyone can chow and rotate into the crowd off the pond!
You can't just capture that much awesome in one video very many times in your life. At least not with the same people and the same lives.
No, most of us are wondering when the Russias will make another swoop video like they had a couple of years ago. Not just anyone can chow and rotate into the crowd off the pond!
Russians are more interesting to see opening video of Peregrine, but only see Westerns bla-bla-bla here Or we will ask Mr.Putin buy whole PD for R@D purpose, grant PDFT russian passports and send them in Siberia for next swoop camp
(This post was edited by dima39 on Feb 11, 2013, 2:45 PM)
I think it escapes most jumpers on how difficult it is to build a wing like this that is stable and performs as expected. The idea of looking at another design (photo, at a competition, etc) and "Copying it" is borderline laughable.
Ian
For those who remember the 'summer of love' video series that chronicled the r&d phase that produced the Petra, do you really think PD skipped all of that just by looking at a Petra?
I think people assume that because both wings look similar to one another, but different from what's currently available, (they both have an elliptical leading edge and a straight trailing edge), someone must be copying. Thanks davelepka for pointing out multiple differences that I didn't notice just from one picture/angle.
At worst, they were intrigued by the planform and decided to experiment with it. Really though, do you believe PD has just been sitting on their ass since the velo came out waiting for someone else to give them an idea for a new canopy?
(This post was edited by MarsGirl on Feb 12, 2013, 9:44 AM)
Nice discussion here, but what about the undertaker from firebird,.. looks very simular then the Petra and Peregrine.. and is already on the marked for several years... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3JbTAGEaf8
(This post was edited by Luck on Feb 13, 2013, 2:31 AM)
[Dr. House Voice] No, you can't bring 3rd party references or common sense into a brand war! Duh .... When you do that the war fighters feel awkward and weird. Do you understand what you have done wrong?
Let me fix this up. Watch this:
Everybody knows that PD copy-cat the Petra design that looks similar with some speed-flying wings that no skydiver ever heard about, in an attempt to make lots and lots of money by opening it to a hand picked market .... wait .... that doesn't sound right let me try that again.
I'm sure that PD makes tons of money out of those swooping tournaments ... ohhhh .... hmmmmm ... alright 3rd time is a charm.
I'm sure that PD makes a lot more money from sport skydiving addicts who buy 2nd hand wings than from the stable military contracts, so the elite swooping team is just clever marketing for the money machine .... hmmmm damn it's hard for me to believe what I'm writing.
Please buy this and re-start the brand war .... it's about money and has always been with PD.
You make it sound as if the military side of the business is some how different to the sport side. The military is just another customer, and if they didn't care for marketing and brand then they wouldn't be using the Factory Team to train their special forces guys, unless of course they have swoop comps in Iraq and Afgan. It's all business, marketing and ego, like most things. PD just do it well.
DocPop probably isn't wearing a tin foil hat and he posted information in this thread specifically regarding the Peregrine canopy.
Do you have any fresh insights into the evolution and design of this canopy or how it flies?
Considering how long the Velocity has been at the front of the PD product line for high performance canopies, this new wing is rather special. It appears to be a very different canopy and it has captured the interest of many pilots. We may not earn a chance to fly it, but we're still very curious.
(This post was edited by craigbey on Feb 14, 2013, 6:22 PM)
In sport skydiving there is a "potential" huge demand for high-end products (peregrine and petra are high-end) but within that "potential" market there are only *few* ready to be consumers for high-end products. The others are wannabe. Given the level of skills demanded by the high-end and the severity of the consequences when that demand is not meet, making the high-end open to the entire "potential" market is un-wise. Injuries, death will create law-suits and will affect PD image/brand.
In military skydiving there's no market for high-end.
In other words the high-end market it's very very small. I don't know what would it be their break even point for the investment but they will not reach it.
PD doesn't make money with their new high-end product. Their drive for peregrine could be passion, ego or something else.
If it's passion or ego they wouldn't copy the other business competitors.
But I do understand what you mean.
(This post was edited by d123 on Feb 15, 2013, 4:52 PM)
Their drive for peregrine could be passion, ego or something else.
Something else? It's pretty clear really. It's a great marketing too for all the wannabe swoopers to have Team PD win the meets with the top of the line Perigrine, or Scalpel, or whatever their new ones will be.
And that makes perfect sense to me. (And, I'm also sure they are passionate about it, but the driver IMO is pretty clear)
In other words the high-end market it's very very small. I don't know what would it be their break even point for the investment but they will not reach it.
PD doesn't make money with their new high-end product. Their drive for peregrine could be passion, ego or something else.
I can remember the first time i ever saw 'real' swooping. It was a video of the Empuriabrava Kings of Swoop 2006. I was pretty new to skydiving and watching Jay and Jonathon fighting for first place was inspirational, I decided straight away that I would dedicate the rest of my skydiving to learning the discipline of canopy piloting in the hopes of one day being able to compete in a competition like that.
Jay and Johnathon were flying the PD velocity at the time, so naturally, I decided that I would follow suit with progression through the PD product range, like many others did.
My first new canopy as a result was a PD sabre 2, I also went on to purchase 1 katana, 1 velocity and 2 comp velos from new, also bought perhaps 3 second hand sabre 2s, 1 katana and another standard velo during progressive down sizes. When I started wing suiting I bought a PD spectre 120. edited to add 2 PD reserves and 1 PD optimum reserve.
You are right, PD will not make any money selling the Perigrine to the skydiving public, thats not the point.
They do however, need to ensure that the guys on the podium are flying PD canopies, selecting who can fly the most advantageous wing will help in doing this.
PD make great products, have great customer service and the factory team have driven the standard in Canopy Piloting to where it currently is.
They are however, a business. Not a charitable foundation set up so save skydivers from themselves as some people seem to think.
There was no rush of 'wanna be' pilots going in when the comp velo was released, the only people who I ever saw fly then were competitive canopy pilots.
I guess PD have a better strategy this time round.
(This post was edited by matt002 on Feb 16, 2013, 7:10 AM)
From where I'm standing I'm thinking that if one of the brands focus on mass transition of the wannabe to high end consumers, in the long run they could win the brand war and make more money from high-end.
In other words reduce the education cost (compared with what's currently available) to increase the high-end market and then increase the high-end price .
Wow! PD sounds a little full of themselves here. They should just say we made a new canopy for our team so they can kick more ass.
I dont know what the rules are with what canopy you can use in comps. Im thinking that its for sale for that reason but they pick who to sell too. I dont have a problem with that at all. I mean one of reasons to get on a team is to have more of a edge right? (support,gear ect)
I love my velo and thinking of stepping up to a comp.
As far as copying, of course companies copy products. It happens in every market. Why should PD be any different. They are just keeping up with times. Looks like they are doing a good job of it too.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Feb 17, 2013, 7:22 AM
Post #133 of 156
(2331 views)
Shortcut
BTW, I still have all those plastic canopies that I used to fly at SDH. And they are still in great shape. I'm still waiting for someone to make a production canopy out of this material. I recall actually placing at a swoop meet with one.
They should just say we made a new canopy for our team so they can kick more ass.
Nonsense. If that were true it wouldn't be available outside of the Factory Team.
Just thinking out loud here. Who outside the team is it available too? A hand full of people? I can care less to be honest. I am having hard enough time wanting to get the scratch together for a comp velo. I am deff not paying 3500 plus for a canopy to compete 2-3 times a year. So again no worries I can careless who they go to. I do think its a wing and like every other wing you fly whats over your head. Wording is everything and the way they worded the article on said canopy makes them (pd) sound snooty to me at least from a public relation stand point.
(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Feb 18, 2013, 10:32 PM)
from the sound of it, ultra-light and thin lines plus very high wing-loads. Sounds like a good choice for snapped lines or a cracked neck!
I doubt it's something that simple. If it were, you could swap out the lines and take it to terminal all day.
Designing a canopy is full of tradeoffs. You might want an ultra long dive which could come in part from an extremely steep trim, but a steep trim might be BAD news at terminal opening. We deploy at half brakes for a reason! You want lots of lift and control of wing tip vortices, so you go with a Schumann planform, but maybe the hyper-responsiveness that comes with that planform and that trying to reliably control a terminal deployment aren't compatible...
Usually designers compromise to get the best of all the factors they want... I'm guessing the design brief for the Peregrine went something along the lines of 'we want a primary swooping machine. Not a skydiving canopy that can be used for swooping. Focus on the former...'
My guess as to why it isn't meant to be taken to terminal? It wasn't designed to be.
(This post was edited by yoink on Mar 16, 2013, 5:31 PM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013, 7:24 PM
Post #146 of 156
(1044 views)
Shortcut
Whats a difference? VS VELO PRO or PETRA for example? Looks awsome thou...
PD got a Petra. Pulled it apart, put it back together. Stuck a PD logo o. There and called it a peregrine.
Icarus did the r&d PD put their spin on it
Thanks for your informed opinion.
Now, just so I can check - you're basing this assertion on
Personal familiarity with both parachutes? Knowledge of the construction patterns of both? Firsthand information of the PD / Icarus R&D process?
come on - You're posting this as fact on a public forum, so I'm asking you for your evidence. Put up or shut up. By the way, 'I heard' doesn't cut it...
I'm bored of all the Icarus vs PD bullshit that's been going on for years. The fanboyism is rediculous.
(This post was edited by yoink on Mar 25, 2013, 9:31 AM)
This assertion is ridiculous. I forget which show number it was but John was on Skydive Radio a few years ago and stated they were also experimenting with a similar design.
Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.
Whats a difference? VS VELO PRO or PETRA for example? Looks awsome thou...
PD got a Petra. Pulled it apart, put it back together. Stuck a PD logo o. There and called it a peregrine.
Icarus did the r&d PD put their spin on it
Thanks for your informed opinion.
Now, just so I can check - you're basing this assertion on
Personal familiarity with both parachutes? Knowledge of the construction patterns of both? Firsthand information of the PD / Icarus R&D process?
come on - You're posting this as fact on a public forum, so I'm asking you for your evidence. Put up or shut up. By the way, 'I heard' doesn't cut it...
I'm bored of all the Icarus vs PD bullshit that's been going on for years. The fanboyism is rediculous.
Don't take life too seriously.
The PD vs Icarus is like Ford vs Chev... It will never stop. Myself I like both, no faves
I never said my statement was fact, nor did I claim to have any knowledge about either canopies.
Just havin a bit of fun
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Mar 28, 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #153 of 156
(720 views)
Shortcut
Development timeline comments straight from John at the 4:50 mark in the link below.
"In development the last 5 years, aggressively the last 3."
Dude, that quote was made AFTER this thread popped up, so he's just doing damage control to keep the secrets secret. It means nothing.
A bunch of guys who don't work for Icarus or PD or build canopies at all said it's a straight rip-off, and that means something. I'm not sure what, but something.
Along those same lines Ian, be careful anytime you're in the factory. If you leave any DNA anywhere in there, they're going to clone you and drop the 'real' you from the team and just use the clone-Ian.
324399_331598270203221_984173480_o.jpg
