"Tapered" vs "Semi-Elliptical" vs "Fully-Elliptical" vs "Cross-braced"

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I'm just trying to figure out what the terminology is supposed to mean. Are you sure you don't mean the Crossfire2? I wouldn't think the Safire2 would be considered in the same class as the Pilot or Sabre2 if it is indeed considered fully elliptical.

With respect to performance, the Safire2 is in the same class as a Pilot or a Sabre2. The flight characteristics are similar.

It's shape, however, at least according to Icarus' marketing department, is fully elliptical. All this means is that every cell is tapered, as opposed to, for example, the Pilot, on which only the two outside cells on each side are tapered.

There are many factors which play a major role in a canopy's performance, besides the shape of the planform. Some of these are the angle at which the canopy is trimmed, frontal surface area and line length.

For Great Deals on Gear

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

IMHO Term like "Elliptical","Semi-Elliptical" vs "Fully-Elliptical"
are Marketing Mambo-Jambo.

Yes. Jumpers should demo canopies before purchase, and base decisions on actual flight characteristics, and not some marketers description in an ad.

For Great Deals on Gear

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

It's just another example of marketing speak, I'm pretty sure that Icarus uses the phrase 'truely elliptical' to describe not only the Safire2 but also their Spectre equivalent 7-cell canopy.

Quote

The Icarus Omega is a 7-Cell, Lightly Elliptical, Zero Porosity, All-Round canopy. It has been designed as a no hassles, RW, Demo Jumping, Fun Accuracy, Fun CRW canopy. It is super easy to use with delicious '7-cell' openings, easy packing and gentle landings.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

A projection of an inflated canopy would offer an easy way to differentiate the planform of different models

detailed (cell by cell) specs on the canopy, including other factors such as trim angle, frontal surface area, etc. And then offer downloadable articles on your website explaining the effects of differences for all the different factors.

I have no doubt that there are jumpers who are both interested in, and capable of understanding, the information you are suggesting be presented.

However, I also have no doubt that there are jumpers (maybe the majority) who either are not interested in that level of detail, cannot understand the factors presented, or will mis-construe how to apply the information. For this reason, I think you might be aiming a little high with your ideas.

What needs to be presented is a basic explanation of the canopy's construction (cell number, x-bracing or airlocks, line type and design), along with a written description of the canopy's design intent.

What question was the mfg. trying to answer when they developed the product? Is this the same question the jumper is asking when they are looking for a canopy?

Additionally, this information needs to be applied to different wingloadings, and presented with a chart similar to the current warning label on PD canopies.

This would give the jumper real-world information they could use when chosing a canopy. We have already discussed how canopies with similar design in the areas of cell number and taper can produce very different performing canopies, so providing that information does not answer the questions that jumpers need to consider when choosing a wing.

For example, I would be a bit gun-shy to buy a 300hp, 3000lb. car for a first time driver. If, however, it was a heavy duty deisel truck for towing trailers, and had an empty weight of 5000lbs, aside from the gas guzzling problem, I'd feel much better about a newer driver behind the wheel. See? Same horsepower, two vastly different applications. Telling me it has 300hp is not enough, telling me what it's designed for, and how fast it will go is the real-world info I need.

The terminology 'eliptical, semi-eliptical, and semi tapered' need to go away. There are no eliptical canopies (Firebolt excluded), and any term using the prefix 'semi' relies on A) having a 'full' or 'complete' standard to reference, and B) an indication of the magnitude of how 'semi' it is. Is it 50% of the reference or 75%?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Quote

A projection of an inflated canopy would offer an easy way to differentiate the planform of different models

detailed (cell by cell) specs on the canopy, including other factors such as trim angle, frontal surface area, etc. And then offer downloadable articles on your website explaining the effects of differences for all the different factors.

I have no doubt that there are jumpers who are both interested in, and capable of understanding, the information you are suggesting be presented.

However, I also have no doubt that there are jumpers (maybe the majority) who either are not interested in that level of detail, cannot understand the factors presented, or will mis-construe how to apply the information. For this reason, I think you might be aiming a little high with your ideas.

What needs to be presented is a basic explanation of the canopy's construction (cell number, x-bracing or airlocks, line type and design), along with a written description of the canopy's design intent.

What question was the mfg. trying to answer when they developed the product? Is this the same question the jumper is asking when they are looking for a canopy?

Additionally, this information needs to be applied to different wingloadings, and presented with a chart similar to the current warning label on PD canopies.

This would give the jumper real-world information they could use when chosing a canopy. We have already discussed how canopies with similar design in the areas of cell number and taper can produce very different performing canopies, so providing that information does not answer the questions that jumpers need to consider when choosing a wing.

For example, I would be a bit gun-shy to buy a 300hp, 3000lb. car for a first time driver. If, however, it was a heavy duty deisel truck for towing trailers, and had an empty weight of 5000lbs, aside from the gas guzzling problem, I'd feel much better about a newer driver behind the wheel. See? Same horsepower, two vastly different applications. Telling me it has 300hp is not enough, telling me what it's designed for, and how fast it will go is the real-world info I need.

The terminology 'eliptical, semi-eliptical, and semi tapered' need to go away. There are no eliptical canopies (Firebolt excluded), and any term using the prefix 'semi' relies on A) having a 'full' or 'complete' standard to reference, and B) an indication of the magnitude of how 'semi' it is. Is it 50% of the reference or 75%?

I agree that all the info I want would be difficult to obtain, and confusing for some.

My point is, if the manufacturers are going to confuse potential customers with technical jargon and numerical figures, that jargon and those figures should actually mean something, and not simply make the product sound hi-tech.

[mattjw916 2]

Quote

It's shape, however, at least according to Icarus' marketing department, is fully elliptical. All this means is that every cell is tapered, as opposed to, for example, the Pilot, on which only the two outside cells on each side are tapered.

...and to throw even more fuel on the fire, this is also misleading or confusing to the uninformed. Since the Pilot is generally regarded as an intermediate level canopy, someone without a lot of backround on the subject could look at the Stiletto and think, "gee, it only has the last 2 cells "tapered" on either side too, it can't be that much more different than a Pilot."

I agree with Dave *gasp* that the marketing of the canopies is hugely confusing to those that don't enjoy spending loads of time reading or demoing. Most students are just taught that "elliptical" = evil until they hit some magical jump number. Hell, most of us nowadays made our first jump under a highly loaded elliptical, i.e. a tandem.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[jumpnaked69 0]

Quote

***
I have no doubt that there are jumpers who are both interested in, and capable of understanding, the information you are suggesting be presented.

However, I also have no doubt that there are jumpers (maybe the majority) who either are not interested in that level of detail, cannot understand the factors presented, or will mis-construe how to apply the information. For this reason, I think you might be aiming a little high with your ideas.

What needs to be presented is a basic explanation of the canopy's construction (cell number, x-bracing or airlocks, line type and design), along with a written description of the canopy's design intent.

What question was the mfg. trying to answer when they developed the product? Is this the same question the jumper is asking when they are looking for a canopy?

Additionally, this information needs to be applied to different wingloadings, and presented with a chart similar to the current warning label on PD canopies.

This would give the jumper real-world information they could use when chosing a canopy. We have already discussed how canopies with similar design in the areas of cell number and taper can produce very different performing canopies, so providing that information does not answer the questions that jumpers need to consider when choosing a wing.

In my very humble and limited experience I've found the information suggested on PD canopy labels almost as ignored as the wing loading recommendations published by USPA. If we were to really follow those recommendations just about every jumper out there is flying at the ADVANCED or EXPERT level and beyond on every style canopy. Similarly, the wing loading recommendations by USPA could be considered ridiculous if you judged it by de facto standards. Almost NO ONE follows anything close to those wing loading recommendations at my dropzone and we're a mile above sea level. I think in the same way that speed limits on roads are updated every few years to meet the normalized behavior of drivers and still set a standard, wingloading and canopy-style recommendations, if they are to be made, should follow something close to what is already going on. I'm not suggesting that everyone out there is a safe and capable canopy pilot but the vast majority of jumpers are flying without injury or harm to others. All I suggest is that whatever standards are "established" in the industry, that they be something we can look at reasonably and expect people to follow.

I think canopy selection is a very individualized choice. What I think we need is a set of skills and checklists similar to what Brian Germain and others have established. Land it downwind, crosswind, no wind, flare turns, limited CRW work, etc. Personal situational awareness and KNOWING your canopy and feeling like your canopy and you are totally on the same page are incredibly important in determining where you should be flying. Some people are totally on their game and others are far from it. It would be great if we all had a close friend that could call us out and say, "dont be a fool, stay with that canopy size and/or style."

I've also found that a canopy's shaping is not the best indication of flight performance. Neither is wing loading. Neither is size. It changes for every canopy and at least two or three of the canopies for each of the "classes" mentioned above have wildly different flight characteristics that could mean the difference between a scared student and a competent pilot.


Just my two cents.
Alan

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I've found the information suggested on PD canopy labels almost as ignored as the wing loading recommendations published by USPA.

Yeah, your right. Fuck the jumpers. Lets call all canopies the 'exactly what you need 135' and be done with it.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Most students are just taught that "elliptical" = evil until they hit some magical jump number. Hell, most of us nowadays made our first jump under a highly loaded elliptical, i.e. a tandem.

Fair enough...to keep safe.
Was not aware that a tandem was considered a "highly loaded elliptical". They just seem so docile.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Was not aware that a tandem was considered a "highly loaded elliptical". They just seem so docile

They're really not. Some tandem canopies are tapered, and sporty in their nature, but the loadings are typically light, in the 1.0 to 1.2 range. Sure you can get them up to 1.5 or 1.6, but thats running into the limitations for suspended weight for the system.

Most bigger TM's tend to prefer the bigger canopies anyway. Shutting down a canopy at 1.5 with extra luggage can be a handful.

[mattjw916 2]

Not to knock Mile-Hi but that place can't even get everyone to land in the same direction... Every load has at least 2 to 3 landing directions. There are some very talented canopy pilots and skydivers there, but there are also a lot of people who think they are, but aren't. If you really pay attention to how some of those people are landing those canopies there, you will see that they slide, crash, and otherwise aren't making the best decisions regarding what they are flying.

I'm no wingload nazi at all but having been to almost 20 dropzones now and have seen how canopy instruction differs from region to region, and having the benefit of receiving a lot of coaching from world-class canopy pilots in the process, it is very evident, especially on a no-wind, hot, high density altitude day there, that a lot of the people flying those "hot" canopies are over their head. The camera guy that hooked it in recently is a good example. He's a nice guy but youthful exuberance + fast canopy + low hook = ambulance ride.

The place is improving thanks to people like Justin but it really leaves a lot to be desired.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I've also found that a canopy's shaping is not the best indication of flight performance. Neither is wing loading. Neither is size.

Yeah, I've found color to be the best indicator. The red ones are fast, like cars. Thats why canopies were slow in the 80's, they were all brown and green.

Once neon colors came out, it was the beginning of the end.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Yeah, I've found color to be the best indicator. The red ones are fast, like cars. Thats why canopies were slow in the 80's, they were all brown and green.

So. You can see my canopy on my icon. Is it fast?

[johnny1488 1]

The Safire2 is marketed as a "lightly and truly elliptical wing" and also is described as a Mid-range performance canopy.

The Crossfire2 is marketed as a "highly and truly elliptical wing" and is described as a High performance wing.

When the original Safire and Crossfire were released, not many canopies were fully elliptical (ie every cell a different shape). Most were squares with the 2 or 3 end cells tapered on the leading and/or trailing edge. Since then many other companies have thrown their own idea of "elliptical" into the mix. Better to look at who the company is marketing their canopy to rather than the shape (or what they call the shape) of it.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome