Skydawg 0
Recommended Posts
TomAiello 25
Quotei really like the idea of the vents on the new generation of canopies but was worried about the openings on the terminal jumps in norway.
Get a small mesh (marquisette) slider, or even a sail slider with a hole cut in it. Playing with the slider and dumping high (by BASE standards) ought to work that out for you.
Quotei will be moving to Aus in a few months and my understanding is most of the jumps there are low altitude?
In general, that's probably true. Have you considered posting to the ABA forum?
QuoteI am considering the blackjack at the moment or the troll.
I've made many jumps, both low and terminal, on both. If you're wanting snappy slider down openings at low altitude, and soft slider up openings at terminal, I'd go with the Blackjack. I think it opens slightly cleaner at low airspeed, and noticeably slower with a large mesh slider at terminal, than the Troll MDV.
Your results may vary.
TomAiello 25
Quote...you should read Tom's comments on the Troll; http://www.blincmagazine.com/reviews/Gear/Parachutes/troll/index.html
Note that those comments are for the unvented Troll. In my opinion, the addition of the MDV's greatly improved the Troll's slider down openings. (I still prefer the BJ's openings at low altitude, though.)
jasonf 0
As an experienced Australian jumper I would recommend a canopy that is best suited to classic accuracy style landings. The following characteristics would be highly desirable:
- Able to sink with little forward speed in nil wind conditions
- Forgiving flare
- Easy to fly
- Consistently land with little forward speed in nil wind conditions
In my opinion the canopy that performs best in this area is a FLiK with 4 upper control lines. The superior flight characteristics of the aerofoil with improved glide make it a better choice than a FOX. I have not jumped a Blackjack but I have seen them jumped and consider their forward speed excessive, unfortunately this applies to most BASE canopies with respect to jumping in Australia. There is also a question about Blackjack openings sub-terminal slider up. I would not recommend pioneering a Troll, but if you do there would be a number of people who would be interested to hear how you go. Any BASE specific canopy will work, it's just a question of which is going to fulfill your requirements best.
At your weight, I would recommend a canopy in the 260 sq/ft range. The .7 wing loading formula is outdated and a larger canopy I believe would be beneficial in your circumstances.
I would suggest a Prism 2 or Vertex 2 as it will simplify your ordering process and may save you some $ allowing you to spend more on safety gear (a solid pair of padded knee pads is highly recommended). Ignoring the looks, I have always found the Prism to be the most functional container and is my personal favorite. If you don’t have anyone to help with packing you may want to consider a Velcro container for easier closing and more consistent heading performance, though Velcro is not suitable for wingsuit jumps. I believe containers are a very personal choice as they all work.
I don't believe the sites we jump in Australia are any harder that those jumped in other countries. We just jump hard sites on a regular basis due to a lack of objects at the easier end of the spectrum. The height of the objects is not the big issue; however the nature of the landing areas we regularly use is. Not to many of the landing areas are flat or have grass.
I have personally used a FLiK/Prism for everything from 110 feet to terminal and wingsuit.
Jason Fitz-Herbert
- Able to sink with little forward speed in nil wind conditions
- Forgiving flare
- Easy to fly
- Consistently land with little forward speed in nil wind conditions
In my opinion the canopy that performs best in this area is a FLiK with 4 upper control lines. The superior flight characteristics of the aerofoil with improved glide make it a better choice than a FOX. I have not jumped a Blackjack but I have seen them jumped and consider their forward speed excessive, unfortunately this applies to most BASE canopies with respect to jumping in Australia. There is also a question about Blackjack openings sub-terminal slider up. I would not recommend pioneering a Troll, but if you do there would be a number of people who would be interested to hear how you go. Any BASE specific canopy will work, it's just a question of which is going to fulfill your requirements best.
At your weight, I would recommend a canopy in the 260 sq/ft range. The .7 wing loading formula is outdated and a larger canopy I believe would be beneficial in your circumstances.
I would suggest a Prism 2 or Vertex 2 as it will simplify your ordering process and may save you some $ allowing you to spend more on safety gear (a solid pair of padded knee pads is highly recommended). Ignoring the looks, I have always found the Prism to be the most functional container and is my personal favorite. If you don’t have anyone to help with packing you may want to consider a Velcro container for easier closing and more consistent heading performance, though Velcro is not suitable for wingsuit jumps. I believe containers are a very personal choice as they all work.
I don't believe the sites we jump in Australia are any harder that those jumped in other countries. We just jump hard sites on a regular basis due to a lack of objects at the easier end of the spectrum. The height of the objects is not the big issue; however the nature of the landing areas we regularly use is. Not to many of the landing areas are flat or have grass.
I have personally used a FLiK/Prism for everything from 110 feet to terminal and wingsuit.
Jason Fitz-Herbert
TomAiello 25
Quote...forward speed excessive...
Can you elaborate on this?
I'm generally of the opinion that forward speed can always be eliminated by flying in deeper brakes. For this reason, I've always seen more available forward speed as always positive, since it just means a wider performance range that I can choose not to use. So long as the canopy flies well slow (i.e. in deep brakes) I haven't seen a situation where I thought having forward speed available if I chose to use it was a bad thing.
Back to the original question: If Aussie jumping conditions favor less available forward speed, consider the BR canopy. Both the Ace/BJ and Troll have very good (by which I mean high) available forward speed. I haven't clocked a Flik, but the Ace and BJ that I clocked had full drive speeds about 8-10 mph faster than my FOX, while the Troll was about 5-7 mph faster. Interestingly, the slowest canopy in full drive was consistently my Mojo. So if that's the consideration, maybe you ought to look around for a used Mojo.
Still, my original comment is, I think, the most salient. As a beginner, you are going to need guidance from the experienced jumpers in your area. In Australia, you'll be able to get more help with BR gear, because so many of the Aussies are using BR gear almost exclusively.
jasonf 0
In reply to: "I've always seen more available forward speed as alwayspositive".
You definitely have a valid point, a faster canopy has a wider range of possible speeds. It also enables better penetration into strong winds and has potential to generate more lift during flare. If two canopies were identical in every aspect of their performance only one had more available forward speed - then I would choose it. However, in reality if
two canopies have different forward speeds then they will also behave differently in other ways. There are many different factors that need to be considered when selecting a canopy such as - nature of landing areas primarily being used, types of approaches needed for landing areas, available height/time to set up for landing, type of jumps being performed, jumper's background and personal preference etc and how the canopy performs in these areas.
I do not believe it is possible to fly and land a Black Jack at the same speed as a FOX and if it were I believe it would take a lot of practice. Flying in brakes is necessary sometimes but it means you are deforming the wing and hence the more brake you have to use the less efficient your wing is going to be. I do not believe all canopies should have as little forward speed as a FOX, there needs to be a balance.
I have owned a Mojo but no longer jump one, not because of its forward speed but because it does not sink as well as a FOX with Vtec and it is sensitive to surging or stalling on opening. To date 6 jumpers in Oz believe the 5th upper control line on a FLiK/FOX make the canopy to difficult to fly safely.
In my opinion a faster canopy has the potential to result in the following disadvantages:
* Harder to sink at steep angles for extended lengths of time (as required
when sinking into a small landing area surrounded by 20ft trees)
* Landings with little forward momentum tend to be harder to achieve
* Landings with forward momentum require several steps to be taken when
touching down (more suited to landing areas without large rocks & not on steep slopes)
* Object strikes when landing have the potential to be harder
* Has potential to generate more speed in turns
* Potential to surge more erratically when transitioning from a deep sink to drive
* More difficult to establish ideal brake settings for various openings (slider down, sub-terminal slider up etc.) due to increased sensitivity
* Less time to make decisions while under canopy
In Oz the landing areas are primarily steep slopes or covered in large rocks and sometimes both. When your feet touch the ground you want as little
forward speed as possible. The landings I have seen in nil wind with the Ace/BJ indicated that the canopy planes out in the flare. I have not been in a position to measure the speed but when you hear the suspension lines whistle through the air, the thought of jumping one is Oz scares me.
There is an experienced Oz jumper who even believes a FLiK is too fast for our conditions. While I understand where he is coming from you have to
balance the overall performance of both canopies.
I am about to purchase a larger FLiK but I would be willing to change the order to Blackjack. I have considered purchasing a Black Jack in the past,
without the ZP composite, but decided to purchase a canopy that was more likely to fill my requirements. I would love to be able to jump other manufacture's gear and see if it possibly out performs the gear currently being used but I don't have to funds available to do this. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about which canopy would be best or
which gear manufacturer is better etc, all canopies work it's just important to know if it suits your needs and understand the flight characteristics of each.
Like I have stated in the past it would be good to see a wider range of gear used in Oz, but on the up side of one gear dominating the market the information exchange is great. Jumpers do own Black Jacks in Oz and maybe one of them will post how they feel. I suspect they would rather have a
slower canopy regardless of manufacturer.
This discussion is very subjective and who knows what the next generation of canopies will bring. Generally speaking, the current generation of new gear seems to lean towards being higher performance. As a whole I am not opposed
to this, there just needs to be a balance and care needs to taken that we don't go too far in performance. You don't have to BASE jump a 9 cell
skydiving canopy to know it may not be a good idea.
Tom as someone who has a lot of jumps on a Black Jack do you believe a Black Jack is likely to out perform a FLiK in Oz? I have come close to buying a Black Jack in the past and may consider owning one if you believe it would be a wise investment.
You definitely have a valid point, a faster canopy has a wider range of possible speeds. It also enables better penetration into strong winds and has potential to generate more lift during flare. If two canopies were identical in every aspect of their performance only one had more available forward speed - then I would choose it. However, in reality if
two canopies have different forward speeds then they will also behave differently in other ways. There are many different factors that need to be considered when selecting a canopy such as - nature of landing areas primarily being used, types of approaches needed for landing areas, available height/time to set up for landing, type of jumps being performed, jumper's background and personal preference etc and how the canopy performs in these areas.
I do not believe it is possible to fly and land a Black Jack at the same speed as a FOX and if it were I believe it would take a lot of practice. Flying in brakes is necessary sometimes but it means you are deforming the wing and hence the more brake you have to use the less efficient your wing is going to be. I do not believe all canopies should have as little forward speed as a FOX, there needs to be a balance.
I have owned a Mojo but no longer jump one, not because of its forward speed but because it does not sink as well as a FOX with Vtec and it is sensitive to surging or stalling on opening. To date 6 jumpers in Oz believe the 5th upper control line on a FLiK/FOX make the canopy to difficult to fly safely.
In my opinion a faster canopy has the potential to result in the following disadvantages:
* Harder to sink at steep angles for extended lengths of time (as required
when sinking into a small landing area surrounded by 20ft trees)
* Landings with little forward momentum tend to be harder to achieve
* Landings with forward momentum require several steps to be taken when
touching down (more suited to landing areas without large rocks & not on steep slopes)
* Object strikes when landing have the potential to be harder
* Has potential to generate more speed in turns
* Potential to surge more erratically when transitioning from a deep sink to drive
* More difficult to establish ideal brake settings for various openings (slider down, sub-terminal slider up etc.) due to increased sensitivity
* Less time to make decisions while under canopy
In Oz the landing areas are primarily steep slopes or covered in large rocks and sometimes both. When your feet touch the ground you want as little
forward speed as possible. The landings I have seen in nil wind with the Ace/BJ indicated that the canopy planes out in the flare. I have not been in a position to measure the speed but when you hear the suspension lines whistle through the air, the thought of jumping one is Oz scares me.
There is an experienced Oz jumper who even believes a FLiK is too fast for our conditions. While I understand where he is coming from you have to
balance the overall performance of both canopies.
I am about to purchase a larger FLiK but I would be willing to change the order to Blackjack. I have considered purchasing a Black Jack in the past,
without the ZP composite, but decided to purchase a canopy that was more likely to fill my requirements. I would love to be able to jump other manufacture's gear and see if it possibly out performs the gear currently being used but I don't have to funds available to do this. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about which canopy would be best or
which gear manufacturer is better etc, all canopies work it's just important to know if it suits your needs and understand the flight characteristics of each.
Like I have stated in the past it would be good to see a wider range of gear used in Oz, but on the up side of one gear dominating the market the information exchange is great. Jumpers do own Black Jacks in Oz and maybe one of them will post how they feel. I suspect they would rather have a
slower canopy regardless of manufacturer.
This discussion is very subjective and who knows what the next generation of canopies will bring. Generally speaking, the current generation of new gear seems to lean towards being higher performance. As a whole I am not opposed
to this, there just needs to be a balance and care needs to taken that we don't go too far in performance. You don't have to BASE jump a 9 cell
skydiving canopy to know it may not be a good idea.
Tom as someone who has a lot of jumps on a Black Jack do you believe a Black Jack is likely to out perform a FLiK in Oz? I have come close to buying a Black Jack in the past and may consider owning one if you believe it would be a wise investment.
manship 0
Quote
>> I do not believe it is possible to fly and land a >> Black Jack at the same speed as a FOX and if it >> were I believe it would take a lot of practice. >> Flying in brakes is necessary sometimes but it >> means you are deforming the wing and hence >> the more brake you have to use the less >> efficient your wing is going to be. I do not >> believe all canopies should have as little forward >> speed as a FOX, there needs to be a balance.
-----So, If I read you correctly, you feel the Blackjack can not be slowed down enough to match the fox? This might be generally true,but I have found my Blackjack to be quite acceptable for sinking into small areas. Granted, I have never been to Australia, and wouldn't begin to say that my jumping experiences equal those areas you guys have to accept as normal. I think a Blackjack could compete with a fox. Also, if you vary your loading to suit your needs, would that help you? Like, get a bit bigger Blackjack which should fly slower for you (I agree you probably would not want the composite top for Australia). My Blackjack is a size 310 and my Fox is a 285. I weigh 200 naked, subject to slight loss on my summer activity. I have only a few demo jumps on a Flik, so I can't really give info on that, but my gut feeling is that the Flik is better than the Fox, in an all around fashion. I still have a Fox, but it has vent covers and 5th line installed (only one jump so far on the 5th line). The covers made a huge difference on the landing - doesn't pound me in like it did before.
>> To date 6 jumpers in Oz believe the 5th upper >> control line on a FLiK/FOX make the canopy to >> difficult to fly safely.
Why? Do you think it turns too fast, stalls too quickly, has less slow speed control or what? I am interested as I have the 5th line now and will be looking for differences, so info from you guys is appreciated.
>> In my opinion a faster canopy has the potential >> to result in the following disadvantages:
>> * Harder to sink at steep angles for extended >> lengths of time (as required
>> when sinking into a small landing area >> surrounded by 20ft trees)
>> * Landings with little forward momentum tend to >> be harder to achieve
>> * Landings with forward momentum require >> several steps to be taken when touching down >> (more suited to landing areas without large >> rocks & not on steep slopes)
>> * Object strikes when landing have the potential >> to be harder
>> * Has potential to generate more speed in turns
>> * Potential to surge more erratically when >> transitioning from a deep sink to drive
>> * More difficult to establish ideal brake settings >> for various openings (slider down, sub-terminal >> slider up etc.) due to increased sensitivity
>> * Less time to make decisions while under >> canopy
>> In Oz the landing areas are primarily steep >> slopes or covered in large rocks
>> ........ the thought of jumping one (a Blackjack) >> in Oz scares me.
-------- Again, I say LOADING. By all means I am a big proponent of jumping what meets YOUR needs. I have found that the only way to tell is by getting hold of a canopy and jumping it. (Thats how I came to have so many damn rigs). If possible get a Flik and a Blackjack and jump them. I have nothing against a Flik, i think BR makes solid gear. I feel and fly a bit better with the Blackjack. (Even compared to a same size ACE - I think the vents make a difference, even though the makers say it shouldn't) I felt sort of the same way with the vented Troll - it is a ok canopy, but i feel better with the Blackjack.
>> There is an experienced Oz jumper who even >> believes a FLiK is too fast for our conditions. >> While I understand where he is coming from you >> have balance the overall performance of both >> canopies.
-------- Did I mention Loading yet? It really makes things different if you get a bigger canopy, and with my Blackjack, even when I get down to 185, I still have enough forward speed for the winds BASE should be done with. And, I ain't afraid of landing backward in a large field like landing area, like several towers we jump.
>> I am about to purchase a larger FLiK but I would >> be willing to change the order to Blackjack.
-----By all means make the best decision you are able to and for Australia, go BIG (I think anyway). If there is anyway to get a jump on the size and brand you want, that will tell you more than eveyones opinion about their situation. I really think you have the right attitude about getting the canopy that will do best for you, so good luck in your search. This probably wasn't much help, I found I had to jump the rigs to find out and just one weekend of it wasn't enough - need various conditions and especially with no wind.
Hey, if nothing else, this can serve as something for Tom to bounce off of!!!
later==========================================
I didn't invent skydiving, but I jumped with the guys who did.
ManBird 0
Why?QuoteTo date 6 jumpers in Oz believe the 5th upper control line on a FLiK/FOX make the canopy to difficult to fly safely.
Note that this is a genuine "why?"... not a sarcastic or defensive "why?". I'm considering purchasing a FLiK and would like to know what negative aspect the fifth control line has. I've only jumped the FLiK once in really nice conditions, so I really haven't been subject to it much (all other jumps were on a Fox a couple years ago).
"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯"
Click
Click
TomAiello 25
Have a look at Jason's posting on the ABA forum. He goes into depth there.
I'll try to chip into this discussion some more later this weekend.
I'll try to chip into this discussion some more later this weekend.
ManBird 0
Aaahhh. From BR's site... "The control range has changed, (with a the additional control lines) it has condensed the toggle stroke, making it feel a little sportier".
I'm glad someone pointed that out. Even on my skydiving canopy I don't like a short toggle stroke... I prefer the range I get when (and am use to) flaring at my arm's full extension. This would be advantagious to those who usually jump skydiving mains with shorter brake lines. I think I'll forego the fifth line on whatever I get. Either that, or let it out several inches.
I'm glad someone pointed that out. Even on my skydiving canopy I don't like a short toggle stroke... I prefer the range I get when (and am use to) flaring at my arm's full extension. This would be advantagious to those who usually jump skydiving mains with shorter brake lines. I think I'll forego the fifth line on whatever I get. Either that, or let it out several inches.
"¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯"
Click
Click
Faber 0
ive got 5th line mod,i didnt got a sporty canopy,but i got a canopy that flares my vetc canopy(no valves)better,i also think ive got better flying than before...
if the issue should be that you want to extend your arms fully as you flare out,then you perhaps need longer brake lines... you should be abel to fly your canopy in all ways(fast forward,sink it in,flat turns and so on).no matter whith or whith out 5th line mod,if you cant,your settings are wrong that simple...
Ive got my 5th line mod after long mails to DW,evrything he said about it works for me
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
if the issue should be that you want to extend your arms fully as you flare out,then you perhaps need longer brake lines... you should be abel to fly your canopy in all ways(fast forward,sink it in,flat turns and so on).no matter whith or whith out 5th line mod,if you cant,your settings are wrong that simple...
Ive got my 5th line mod after long mails to DW,evrything he said about it works for me
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
Pretty much all our (Aus) E jumps are low < 300...
I'd avoid the troll for slider down jumps, you should read Tom's comments on the Troll; http://www.blincmagazine.com/reviews/Gear/Parachutes/troll/index.html
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites