Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
160 ft2?

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 9:41 AM
Post #1 of 39 (1200 views)
Shortcut
160 ft2? Can't Post

Most manufacturers offer at or near a 150 and 170. Does anyone make a 160-ish main?


sid  (D 20135)

Apr 3, 2006, 9:47 AM
Post #2 of 39 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Most manufacturers offer at or near a 150 and 170. Does anyone make a 160-ish main?

Jumpshack offers a 164 sq.ft. Firebolt (I jump one, it's awesome)


dragon2  (D 101989)

Apr 3, 2006, 9:54 AM
Post #3 of 39 (1183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Icarus will make just about any size for you, and Aerodyne makes the Triathlon in size 160.


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:04 AM
Post #4 of 39 (1162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Is it common to have a non-advertised size made for you? Do all manufacturers do it? Is it considered a pain in the ass; I'm guessing they have templates for their normal sizes.

Thanks


davelepka  (D 21448)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:07 AM
Post #5 of 39 (1160 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Whats your deal here? Are you looking to do a half downsize? Trying to cram something into a container?

Either one is a bad idea, or at best a short-term solution, with much better long-term type alternatives.

So what is it?


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:18 AM
Post #6 of 39 (1147 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

WOH...take it easy pal!

Yes, I am thinking about getting something different, but I don't know if I'm quite ready for the big jump down to a 150. So I post a question to find some answers that I haven't seen. Seems like a reasonable dilema to me.

So, do you care to share your thoughts on the "much better long-term type alternatives"?

Please do, I am open to suggestions.


mattjw916  (D License)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:35 AM
Post #7 of 39 (1135 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

It looks like Icarus has a bunch of Safire 2 159s in stock on their website... great canopies IMO, you might want to give 'em a look.

http://www.icaruscanopies.com.es/report_stock_order.php


pilotdave  (D License)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:40 AM
Post #8 of 39 (1128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So, do you care to share your thoughts on the "much better long-term type alternatives"?

Please do, I am open to suggestions.

Is waiting to downsize until you are ready out of the question? Smile

Dave


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Apr 3, 2006, 10:58 AM
Post #9 of 39 (1108 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is it common to have a non-advertised size made for you?

No.

In reply to:
Do all manufacturers do it?

No. When you build the same shape in different sizes it won't fly the same. So when most manufacturers introduce a new size, they build a prototype, jump it, change it, build another one, etc.

Since the manufacturer isn't going to be able to "do it right" when making a custom size, some makers won't do it.

In reply to:
Is it considered a pain in the ass; I'm guessing they have templates for their normal sizes.

Many canopies are cut with a computer controlled hot-knife or laser. Pattern availability shouldn't be an issue.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:06 AM
Post #10 of 39 (1100 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

What would be wrong about going to a 160 from a 170?


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:10 AM
Post #11 of 39 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
So, do you care to share your thoughts on the "much better long-term type alternatives"?

Please do, I am open to suggestions.

Is waiting to downsize until you are ready out of the question? Smile

Dave


Not at all. I just really dislike my current canopy, and have set aside the money for new one...and of course I want to make it smart buy.


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:11 AM
Post #12 of 39 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Is it common to have a non-advertised size made for you?

No.

In reply to:
Do all manufacturers do it?

No. When you build the same shape in different sizes it won't fly the same. So when most manufacturers introduce a new size, they build a prototype, jump it, change it, build another one, etc.

Since the manufacturer isn't going to be able to "do it right" when making a custom size, some makers won't do it.

In reply to:
Is it considered a pain in the ass; I'm guessing they have templates for their normal sizes.

Many canopies are cut with a computer controlled hot-knife or laser. Pattern availability shouldn't be an issue.


Makes sense, thanks.


labrys  (D 29848)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:19 AM
Post #13 of 39 (1083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Why not just get a new 170? You could put a few hundred jumps on it and still sell it for almost as much as you paid.


councilman24  (D 8631)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:24 AM
Post #14 of 39 (1080 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

You should remember that some of these areas are rounded and manufacturers don't necessarily use the same method to determine area. PD has used a different method that the PIA method for their rectangular canopies for years. If you multiply Aerodynes numbers for the triathlon they are rounded.

Unless you have a very specific need and usually are on one end or the other of the range offered, there is no need to get a custom size.

As stated above, canopy performance doesn't generally scale directly with size. Simple explination, 1 to 1 loading on a 120 is much "higher performance" than on a 220. Stick with what has been developed and tested.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:32 AM
Post #15 of 39 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [councilman24] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

One reason: our canopy rules. Sometimes people allowed to jump say a 150 have trouble jumping a 149 at some dz's (not at all dz's). Ordering a 150 takes care of that problem Crazy


Reginald  (D 28162)

Apr 3, 2006, 11:43 AM
Post #16 of 39 (1063 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just really dislike my current canopy, and have set aside the money for new one...and of course I want to make it smart buy.

What do you not like about your current main is maybe the first question. How will doing a half downsize help that problem?


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 12:10 PM
Post #17 of 39 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why not just get a new 170? You could put a few hundred jumps on it and still sell it for almost as much as you paid.

That was my initial plan, and possibly what I will do. I'm just being thorough and exploring all options to make this a logical, educated purchase.


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 12:18 PM
Post #18 of 39 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Reginald] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I just really dislike my current canopy, and have set aside the money for new one...and of course I want to make it smart buy.

What do you not like about your current main is maybe the first question. How will doing a half downsize help that problem?


The openings either beat the shit out me, or take 1200 feet. The flare sucks; I've tried it several different ways, and it just feels worn out.

Bottom line is that I've set aside the money and I am going to buy a new canopy. I'm not an aggressive pilot, and not eager to get under a rocket-chute any time soon if ever. I want something that's suitable for me now, and that I won't want to downsize out of over the next few hundred jumps. If a "half downsize" is a possible solution then great. But as I said before, I'm just trying to be thorough and exlpore all options.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Apr 3, 2006, 12:18 PM
Post #19 of 39 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Reginald] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What do you not like about your current main is maybe the first question. How will doing a half downsize help that problem?

Lot of people dislike the Sabre. Not sure why people don't answer the simple question - either 160s exist or they don't. If you're looking to buy a new canopy and the idea choice would be the 160, it makes more sense than doing the 170, no?

But if people did see the profile and the current 1.22 WL on the 170..the half downsize question becomes valid. 1.3@108 jumps is pushing the envelope of reasonable. And a bit beyond in many people's thinking.


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 12:20 PM
Post #20 of 39 (1028 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Valid points.


dmetz  (A 39802)

Apr 3, 2006, 12:25 PM
Post #21 of 39 (1027 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sid] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Most manufacturers offer at or near a 150 and 170. Does anyone make a 160-ish main?

Jumpshack offers a 164 sq.ft. Firebolt (I jump one, it's awesome)


(Anyone):

How does a hybrid hold up compared to 100% ZP?

Anyone else have any opinions to add on the Firbolt? I haven't heard much about them.


brianfry713  (D 28665)

Apr 3, 2006, 1:02 PM
Post #22 of 39 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

From http://www.icarusnz.com

"As with all our canopies the XXXX is available in any size you choose."

I heard they'll even make fractional sizes, so if you want something like a 160.5 sq. ft. canopy you could probably get one.

Keep in mind that each manufacturer may measure their canopies differently, so a Sabre 170 might be bigger or smaller than a 170 from another company.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 3, 2006, 1:31 PM
Post #23 of 39 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How does a hybrid hold up compared to 100% ZP?

The hybrids are much easier to pack, and since the area that sees the most wear from packing and has the most exposure to sunlight (ie the topskin) is zp, a hybrid should last about as long as a canopy built completely from zp. An example would be PD's Silhouette.

One major caveat on hybrids though - PD calls out an absolute maximum of 221 pounds on a Silhouette 170 - a wingloading of about 1.3 (see chart here). Compare that with the maximum of 255 pounds for a Sabre2 170 - a wingloading of about 1.5 (see chart here). While the two canopies have similar planforms (nine cell, slightly elliptical), they feel that the all zp Sabre2 can handle a higher wingloading than the hybrid Silhouette.

If your profile is correct, downsizing shouldn't really be something you need to consider right now. Instead, look at purchasing a more modern canopy design - like a Sabre2, Safire2, Pilot, etc - in the same size you are jumping now. The difference in shape between the Sabre you're jumping now and the newer canopies will give you more predictable openings, a better flare and allow you to have more fun under canopy, all without the increase in speed and risk that a downsize will add to your skydiving.


Reginald  (D 28162)

Apr 3, 2006, 2:02 PM
Post #24 of 39 (947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not sure why people don't answer the simple question - either 160s exist or they don't.

Because asking questions spurs peoples thinking and giving an answer rarely does. Additionally, many times people are not asking the right question so asking a question back may lead them down the right track.


Reginald  (D 28162)

Apr 3, 2006, 2:14 PM
Post #25 of 39 (936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dmetz] 160 ft2? [In reply to] Can't Post

Heres what Im gathering now that you gave us more info. You have a used Sabre 1 and you dont like the opening, the flight characteristics or the flair. Id also bet the canopy has a LOT of jumps on it.

Based on this I dont think the solution is a 160 sqft canopy. A new(er) canopy such as a Sabre2 or a Pilot in a 170 is probably the way to go.
1. You will get MUCH improved openings (the Sabre2 is a totally different canopy than the old Sabre they are only similar in name)
2. Better flight characteristics (the Sabre is a true square the Sabre2 and Pilot are both semi ellipticals)
3. Both will have a much better flair than an old worn out Sabre. The flair on the Sabre2 is great.

Based on your jump numbers and time in the sport, it does not look like you stay very current. A semi elliptical 170 is probably a better canopy than any downsize at this point. You will get much better and different flight out of a semi elliptical and that should satisfy your current needs. When you are ready to downsize to a 150 either of the above canopies will have great resale value.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)