MagicGuy 0 #1 September 11, 2006 I got to demo a Spectre 170 this weekend. Al from Performance Designs was doing demos on all of their canopies. I wanted to jump a 170 because the rig that I have currently has a Triathlon 160 in it and I haven't jumped it yet. Before that I was jumping a big 9 cell PD 190. Both Al and Brian (the master rigger) thought it would be smart for me to try the Spectre 170 for two reasons - I'll be jumping a seven cell, and it's inbetween what I've been jumping and what I will be jumping. Just for the record, I weigh 125 pounds, and that's on a heavy day And on a funny side note, I found out that I fall at an average of about 100mph, reaching as low as about 94mph. I have jumps on 260, 240 and 200 Navigators and a PD 190. I honestly felt the most comfortable on the Spectre! I felt totally in control and could actually get some penetration into the wind. With those huge canopies it feels like the wind has more control over me than I do which is a scary thing. And my landings with the Spectre were amazing. SO accurate, I actually landed where I wanted to. Flare power was awesome, turns were extremely responsive and fun. For the first time I felt very comfortable under canopy, and I only made 4 jumps on it. The Spectre rocked! The PD guy told me that I might be disappointed when I jump the Triathlon. Just curious what people who have jumped both types of canopies think about that statement. The Spectre was so much fun.. but then again the Triathlon is 10 sq. feet smaller. Any input on what I might expect from the Triathlon, or what might be different about it versus the Spectre? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peckerhead 0 #2 September 11, 2006 "The PD guy told me that I might be disappointed when I jump the Triathlon." I bet the Aerodyne guy would not agree..... I have jumped both Triathlons and Spectres and I could not tell much difference between the two. They are very similar canopies in my opinion. You might find the smaller size of the Tri to be a bit more zippy but nothing dramatic. I used to prefer the Triathlon because the fabric that AR used before was much easier to handle. It is refered to as the South African ZP, but now they are using the same stuff as PD so that advantage is gone. If your Tri is a few years old made from the SA fabric you will find that packing is much easier. I am not sure what year they made the change. The Spectre is more expensive and for some reason has a higher resale value but the flight characteristics are comparable to A Tri. I have heard it said more than once that the Spectre is PDs version of the Triathlon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefalle 0 #3 September 11, 2006 I have about 1000 jumps on a tri, 220. I just purchased a spectre 210. both canopies are very similar. I like my spectre a bit better though, it opens in about 500 feet nice, soft and on heading. I found it to be more responsive than the tri and requires less toggle pressure. The tri gave me nice opening about 100 foot snivel, I had a few slammers with it but not enough to complain about. I think you'll like either canopy you go with. fly them both and then decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #4 September 12, 2006 I used to be of the opinion, also, that anyone comparing a Spectre to a Triathlon would be disappointed. Then I bought a low-jumps Triathlon 190 from Ralph Hatley because that's the "best" he had available in that size and I wanted it soon. I was forced to change my mind about the Triathlon - it's great. It's different from a Spectre and personally I'd rather own a Spectre. And it looks like the Triathlon packs pretty large. But I cannot complain about any characteristic of its opening, flight, or landing at this point. And they seem to be very affordable. And the Gelvenor ZP isn't tricky to pack like some new ZPs. (Not that I find that a big problem anyway.) Obviously, you'll have the best chance of happiness if you compare for yourself. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 September 12, 2006 what year is the triathlon 160? the spectre definitely was more responsive than my 98 Tri 220, and it flared much better. But my newer 2005 210 was also much better. Unfortunately, it's been 2 years since I jumped a Spectre and my ability to discern canopy versus me differences wasn't very good then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #6 September 12, 2006 All my rental gear jumps (about 18 of them) were done on a mix between 210 and 190 Spectres. My own rig is a Triathlon 190. What I've heard is the Spectre is a bit more "tapered," but nothing super noticable. Tri does require less toggle pressure than the Spectre (to me, anyways). They both feel the same (although, I don't have very many jumps, thus not a very experienced canopy pilot). On openings, they are very similar, nice 'n soft! I would have gotten a Spectre probably (my DZ is ALL about PD), but I got a really good deal on the Tri, and hearing similar reviews about the Spectre and Tri, I decided to let my budget decide for me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MagicGuy 0 #7 September 12, 2006 The Triathlon is from '98. The Spectre was brand new. I'll probably find out this weekend how much different they are. As long as I get cleared to jump the Triathlon I'll let you all know how it goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 3331 120 #8 September 13, 2006 Don't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt.I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 0 #9 September 13, 2006 QuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #10 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I was begining to wonder the same thing. But then again I am an asshole.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peckerhead 0 #11 September 13, 2006 QuoteThe Triathlon is from '98. The Spectre was brand new. I'll probably find out this weekend how much different they are. As long as I get cleared to jump the Triathlon I'll let you all know how it goes. The Triathlon from 98 has the better fabric and will be much easier to pack. I hoard that stuff because it is getting harder to find. Anyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #12 September 13, 2006 QuoteAnyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! I have a Cobalt and its from Gelvenor. It is the very best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jheadley 0 #13 September 13, 2006 I find the spectre's flare and landing to be a little more "swoopy", more of a plane out across the ground, like a Sabre 2. The triathlon just seems to go slow, slower, stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #14 September 13, 2006 I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #15 September 13, 2006 Quote I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto? Keep on reading.... QuoteWhen lightly loaded (.5 or .6 pounds per sq. ft.), it can be a beginner canopy. When heavily loaded (2.3 pounds per sq. ft. to 1.7 pounds per sq. ft.) it is a high performance canopy that will easily out swoop a Stiletto or other semi-elliptical canopy. BTW have you jumped a Stiletto? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #16 September 13, 2006 No which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #17 September 13, 2006 FYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #18 September 13, 2006 QuoteFYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1)._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Elisha 1 #19 September 13, 2006 Quote I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). And that is a great question to ask....I will just say that I highly doubt that everyone here agrees with Jumpshack's philosophy regarding the Firebolt and WL. I'm kinda in the opposite case. I have 187 jumps and my WL probably makes a few people question it (1.25 to 1.3 depending on how fat I am that day), but my planform is...square. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #20 September 13, 2006 QuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #21 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Regardless you have yet to answer my question. I will break it down so that it's much easier for you to understand. Jumpshack claims the Firebolt as a fully elliptical canopy. People on these forums (www.dropzone.com) often say that inexperience jumpers should not be on fully elliptical canopies, regardless of the w/l'ing. What makes the Firebolt different?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #22 September 13, 2006 QuoteWhat makes the Firebolt different? Beginner through Expert depending on the wing load. QuoteWhat's the recommended wing loading on a Cobalt? The Cobalt canopy is an extremely efficient wing. It has the highest measured glide ratio of any skydiving canopy. The extra lift makes for a canopy that flies 'bigger'. To get equal forward speed when comparing to many other canopies you need to load the Cobalt heavier, i.e. 1#/’ on a Sabre should be compared to 1.2#/’ on a cobalt. 1.2-1.4 beginners 1.4-1.6 intermediate 1.6-1.8 high 1.8-2.2 pro 2.2-2.8 extreme max tested landed wingload 3.6# NOTE: due to the efficiency of the Cobalt wing, most experienced jumpers will jump a Cobalt 1-2 sizes smaller than competing canopies. So Atari claims almost the same. Some people seem to disagree with them. fully elliptical canopy is not more than a marketing term. I jumped a Vison132 and Cobalt135. They are far from being the same. Both of them marketed as elliptical. One feels like a wild horse and the other just an extent of your body. I'd recommend to try Cobalt if your WL is under 1.3, but not Vision. I have not tried Stiletto or Firebolt either. I'd try Firebolt if I could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 3331 120 #23 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I have no financial relationship with Jump Shack, John and Nancy are old friends and their dog loves me. When I'm seen landing smooth and soft on my Firebolt and get asked "what is it" the next remark usually is "never heard of it". I know Jump Shack should advertise more often like everyone else but they don't, so I help out every chance I get. It's a public serviceI Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cobaltdan 0 #24 September 14, 2006 QuoteNo which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation. This can be an old seated, ignorant point of view. Whether or not a canopy is a swooper-star machine or a student canopy is the sum total of many design variables. Just knowing that a canopy is elliptical can only tell you that it is a probably more efficient wing, almost nothing more. Any canopy with more than one size rib is elliptical. Manufacturers like to use "tapered", "semi elliptical", "elliptical" its all just a marketing word based on whom the marketing is targeted towards. The stilletto canopy was one of the earliest elliptical canopies to see widespread use. For all its performance, the early models did have many negative traits, e.g. very twitchy, high tendency for spinning mals, etc.. traits that made it unsuitable for lower skill jumpers. "Elliptical" as a result become synonymous with high performance canopies not suitable for beginners. Now, fast forward a decade. There are tons of modern canopy designs that are elliptical and are perfectly suitable for beginners. And btw it is absolutely true that some design canopies can be suitable for both a beginner and an expert with the only difference being suitable wingloading. e.g. The Atair Space's flawless track record over 7 years + as a begineers canopy. The Atair Alpha : number 1 swoop canopy before the FX (competed by the likes of jim slaton, etc) ......ther are the same exact canopy. only difference was the label, marketing and wingloading. Sincerely,Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Froggy 0 #25 September 22, 2006 QuoteIt's different from a Spectre and personally I'd rather own a Spectre. And it looks like the Triathlon packs pretty large. But I cannot complain about any characteristic of its opening, flight, or landing at this point. And they seem to be very affordable. And the Gelvenor ZP isn't tricky to pack like some new ZPs. (Not that I find that a big problem anyway.) I am no expert by any means, and I haven't jumped a Spectre. I am, however, jumping Tri-175. Just a couple of remarks. Tri-160 is in fact 168 sq.ft. in size, so it's more comparable to a Specter-170 size-wise than it may sound. My Triathlon is made of a SoarCoat fabric, not Gelvenor, and it was a bitch to pack first dozen jumps or so (bought it brand new), then I got uset to it, and it's not a problem anymore... As of the packing volume, Tri-160 is actually packing smaller (419 cu.in) than a Spectre-170 (455 cu.in), according to a chart from ParaGear. Everyone who sees my rig for the first time gets a surprised look on their face when they find out I have a 175-size canopy packed in it -- it doesn't look that size, and the pack job is not very tight... Openings are really nice (I wish they were a bit faster), and I cannot complain about flying and landing a Tri either... -------------- We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
MagicGuy 0 #7 September 12, 2006 The Triathlon is from '98. The Spectre was brand new. I'll probably find out this weekend how much different they are. As long as I get cleared to jump the Triathlon I'll let you all know how it goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3331 120 #8 September 13, 2006 Don't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt.I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #9 September 13, 2006 QuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #10 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I was begining to wonder the same thing. But then again I am an asshole.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peckerhead 0 #11 September 13, 2006 QuoteThe Triathlon is from '98. The Spectre was brand new. I'll probably find out this weekend how much different they are. As long as I get cleared to jump the Triathlon I'll let you all know how it goes. The Triathlon from 98 has the better fabric and will be much easier to pack. I hoard that stuff because it is getting harder to find. Anyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #12 September 13, 2006 QuoteAnyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! I have a Cobalt and its from Gelvenor. It is the very best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jheadley 0 #13 September 13, 2006 I find the spectre's flare and landing to be a little more "swoopy", more of a plane out across the ground, like a Sabre 2. The triathlon just seems to go slow, slower, stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #14 September 13, 2006 I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #15 September 13, 2006 Quote I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto? Keep on reading.... QuoteWhen lightly loaded (.5 or .6 pounds per sq. ft.), it can be a beginner canopy. When heavily loaded (2.3 pounds per sq. ft. to 1.7 pounds per sq. ft.) it is a high performance canopy that will easily out swoop a Stiletto or other semi-elliptical canopy. BTW have you jumped a Stiletto? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #16 September 13, 2006 No which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #17 September 13, 2006 FYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #18 September 13, 2006 QuoteFYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1)._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Elisha 1 #19 September 13, 2006 Quote I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). And that is a great question to ask....I will just say that I highly doubt that everyone here agrees with Jumpshack's philosophy regarding the Firebolt and WL. I'm kinda in the opposite case. I have 187 jumps and my WL probably makes a few people question it (1.25 to 1.3 depending on how fat I am that day), but my planform is...square. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #20 September 13, 2006 QuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mostly_Harmless 0 #21 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Regardless you have yet to answer my question. I will break it down so that it's much easier for you to understand. Jumpshack claims the Firebolt as a fully elliptical canopy. People on these forums (www.dropzone.com) often say that inexperience jumpers should not be on fully elliptical canopies, regardless of the w/l'ing. What makes the Firebolt different?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #22 September 13, 2006 QuoteWhat makes the Firebolt different? Beginner through Expert depending on the wing load. QuoteWhat's the recommended wing loading on a Cobalt? The Cobalt canopy is an extremely efficient wing. It has the highest measured glide ratio of any skydiving canopy. The extra lift makes for a canopy that flies 'bigger'. To get equal forward speed when comparing to many other canopies you need to load the Cobalt heavier, i.e. 1#/’ on a Sabre should be compared to 1.2#/’ on a cobalt. 1.2-1.4 beginners 1.4-1.6 intermediate 1.6-1.8 high 1.8-2.2 pro 2.2-2.8 extreme max tested landed wingload 3.6# NOTE: due to the efficiency of the Cobalt wing, most experienced jumpers will jump a Cobalt 1-2 sizes smaller than competing canopies. So Atari claims almost the same. Some people seem to disagree with them. fully elliptical canopy is not more than a marketing term. I jumped a Vison132 and Cobalt135. They are far from being the same. Both of them marketed as elliptical. One feels like a wild horse and the other just an extent of your body. I'd recommend to try Cobalt if your WL is under 1.3, but not Vision. I have not tried Stiletto or Firebolt either. I'd try Firebolt if I could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 3331 120 #23 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I have no financial relationship with Jump Shack, John and Nancy are old friends and their dog loves me. When I'm seen landing smooth and soft on my Firebolt and get asked "what is it" the next remark usually is "never heard of it". I know Jump Shack should advertise more often like everyone else but they don't, so I help out every chance I get. It's a public serviceI Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cobaltdan 0 #24 September 14, 2006 QuoteNo which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation. This can be an old seated, ignorant point of view. Whether or not a canopy is a swooper-star machine or a student canopy is the sum total of many design variables. Just knowing that a canopy is elliptical can only tell you that it is a probably more efficient wing, almost nothing more. Any canopy with more than one size rib is elliptical. Manufacturers like to use "tapered", "semi elliptical", "elliptical" its all just a marketing word based on whom the marketing is targeted towards. The stilletto canopy was one of the earliest elliptical canopies to see widespread use. For all its performance, the early models did have many negative traits, e.g. very twitchy, high tendency for spinning mals, etc.. traits that made it unsuitable for lower skill jumpers. "Elliptical" as a result become synonymous with high performance canopies not suitable for beginners. Now, fast forward a decade. There are tons of modern canopy designs that are elliptical and are perfectly suitable for beginners. And btw it is absolutely true that some design canopies can be suitable for both a beginner and an expert with the only difference being suitable wingloading. e.g. The Atair Space's flawless track record over 7 years + as a begineers canopy. The Atair Alpha : number 1 swoop canopy before the FX (competed by the likes of jim slaton, etc) ......ther are the same exact canopy. only difference was the label, marketing and wingloading. Sincerely,Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Froggy 0 #25 September 22, 2006 QuoteIt's different from a Spectre and personally I'd rather own a Spectre. And it looks like the Triathlon packs pretty large. But I cannot complain about any characteristic of its opening, flight, or landing at this point. And they seem to be very affordable. And the Gelvenor ZP isn't tricky to pack like some new ZPs. (Not that I find that a big problem anyway.) I am no expert by any means, and I haven't jumped a Spectre. I am, however, jumping Tri-175. Just a couple of remarks. Tri-160 is in fact 168 sq.ft. in size, so it's more comparable to a Specter-170 size-wise than it may sound. My Triathlon is made of a SoarCoat fabric, not Gelvenor, and it was a bitch to pack first dozen jumps or so (bought it brand new), then I got uset to it, and it's not a problem anymore... As of the packing volume, Tri-160 is actually packing smaller (419 cu.in) than a Spectre-170 (455 cu.in), according to a chart from ParaGear. Everyone who sees my rig for the first time gets a surprised look on their face when they find out I have a 175-size canopy packed in it -- it doesn't look that size, and the pack job is not very tight... Openings are really nice (I wish they were a bit faster), and I cannot complain about flying and landing a Tri either... -------------- We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mjosparky 3 #10 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I was begining to wonder the same thing. But then again I am an asshole.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peckerhead 0 #11 September 13, 2006 QuoteThe Triathlon is from '98. The Spectre was brand new. I'll probably find out this weekend how much different they are. As long as I get cleared to jump the Triathlon I'll let you all know how it goes. The Triathlon from 98 has the better fabric and will be much easier to pack. I hoard that stuff because it is getting harder to find. Anyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #12 September 13, 2006 QuoteAnyone with a clue knows the Gelvenor (SA ZP) is the best! I have a Cobalt and its from Gelvenor. It is the very best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jheadley 0 #13 September 13, 2006 I find the spectre's flare and landing to be a little more "swoopy", more of a plane out across the ground, like a Sabre 2. The triathlon just seems to go slow, slower, stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly_Harmless 0 #14 September 13, 2006 I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #15 September 13, 2006 Quote I don't get it. The website says the Firebolt is a fully elliptical canopy. Doesn't seem right for someone wtih 25 jumps. If thats the case why not put him under a stilletto? Keep on reading.... QuoteWhen lightly loaded (.5 or .6 pounds per sq. ft.), it can be a beginner canopy. When heavily loaded (2.3 pounds per sq. ft. to 1.7 pounds per sq. ft.) it is a high performance canopy that will easily out swoop a Stiletto or other semi-elliptical canopy. BTW have you jumped a Stiletto? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly_Harmless 0 #16 September 13, 2006 No which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #17 September 13, 2006 FYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly_Harmless 0 #18 September 13, 2006 QuoteFYI,even the PD Navigator is not a square planform. Planform factor of Pilot and Solo are both 6,6. Size and WL does matter too. I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1)._________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #19 September 13, 2006 Quote I understand that. But as stated on there website the Firebolt is a fully-elliptical canopy. I remember a thread in the instructors forum about letting students use lightly loaded stilettos as there canopies. Even at a very light w/l'ing people said that a student should not be flying an elliptical canopy. So why is it ok to fly the firebolt under such a light w/l'ing but not a stiletto, crossfire, vision, etc... It's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). And that is a great question to ask....I will just say that I highly doubt that everyone here agrees with Jumpshack's philosophy regarding the Firebolt and WL. I'm kinda in the opposite case. I have 187 jumps and my WL probably makes a few people question it (1.25 to 1.3 depending on how fat I am that day), but my planform is...square. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #20 September 13, 2006 QuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly_Harmless 0 #21 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's aspect ratio is roughly the same as the stiletto (stiletto-2.68 to 1/firebolt- 2.65 to 1). Oh God! Yet another data!. Navigator has 2.52:1 as aspect ratio. So? Spectre has 2.14:1 and PD-R has 2.1:1, but those are 7 cell canopies. Check Planform factor. It might help to understand things. From that you might see that Safire2 has higher planform than the legendary Stiletto. Regardless you have yet to answer my question. I will break it down so that it's much easier for you to understand. Jumpshack claims the Firebolt as a fully elliptical canopy. People on these forums (www.dropzone.com) often say that inexperience jumpers should not be on fully elliptical canopies, regardless of the w/l'ing. What makes the Firebolt different?_________________________________________ www.myspace.com/termvelocity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #22 September 13, 2006 QuoteWhat makes the Firebolt different? Beginner through Expert depending on the wing load. QuoteWhat's the recommended wing loading on a Cobalt? The Cobalt canopy is an extremely efficient wing. It has the highest measured glide ratio of any skydiving canopy. The extra lift makes for a canopy that flies 'bigger'. To get equal forward speed when comparing to many other canopies you need to load the Cobalt heavier, i.e. 1#/’ on a Sabre should be compared to 1.2#/’ on a cobalt. 1.2-1.4 beginners 1.4-1.6 intermediate 1.6-1.8 high 1.8-2.2 pro 2.2-2.8 extreme max tested landed wingload 3.6# NOTE: due to the efficiency of the Cobalt wing, most experienced jumpers will jump a Cobalt 1-2 sizes smaller than competing canopies. So Atari claims almost the same. Some people seem to disagree with them. fully elliptical canopy is not more than a marketing term. I jumped a Vison132 and Cobalt135. They are far from being the same. Both of them marketed as elliptical. One feels like a wild horse and the other just an extent of your body. I'd recommend to try Cobalt if your WL is under 1.3, but not Vision. I have not tried Stiletto or Firebolt either. I'd try Firebolt if I could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3331 120 #23 September 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't do anything untill you jump a "Firebolt" from Jump Shack in Deland Florida. I used to own a Spectre 170 and replaced it with a Firebolt 164. I'm selling my Spectre 135 for another smaller Firebolt. Do you have a commercial relationship with Jumpshack? I ask because you've got their homepage as your own in your profile and you've spruiked their products a couple of times in many of your posts. Call me an asshole, but I like to know if those providing advice have vested interests I have no financial relationship with Jump Shack, John and Nancy are old friends and their dog loves me. When I'm seen landing smooth and soft on my Firebolt and get asked "what is it" the next remark usually is "never heard of it". I know Jump Shack should advertise more often like everyone else but they don't, so I help out every chance I get. It's a public serviceI Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #24 September 14, 2006 QuoteNo which is why I am asking. From reading these boards it seems that most people are highly against any new comers jumping an elliptical canopy regardless of w/l'ing. So that is why I am wondering why it's ok to put someone even at a lower w/l under an elliptical in this situation. This can be an old seated, ignorant point of view. Whether or not a canopy is a swooper-star machine or a student canopy is the sum total of many design variables. Just knowing that a canopy is elliptical can only tell you that it is a probably more efficient wing, almost nothing more. Any canopy with more than one size rib is elliptical. Manufacturers like to use "tapered", "semi elliptical", "elliptical" its all just a marketing word based on whom the marketing is targeted towards. The stilletto canopy was one of the earliest elliptical canopies to see widespread use. For all its performance, the early models did have many negative traits, e.g. very twitchy, high tendency for spinning mals, etc.. traits that made it unsuitable for lower skill jumpers. "Elliptical" as a result become synonymous with high performance canopies not suitable for beginners. Now, fast forward a decade. There are tons of modern canopy designs that are elliptical and are perfectly suitable for beginners. And btw it is absolutely true that some design canopies can be suitable for both a beginner and an expert with the only difference being suitable wingloading. e.g. The Atair Space's flawless track record over 7 years + as a begineers canopy. The Atair Alpha : number 1 swoop canopy before the FX (competed by the likes of jim slaton, etc) ......ther are the same exact canopy. only difference was the label, marketing and wingloading. Sincerely,Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Froggy 0 #25 September 22, 2006 QuoteIt's different from a Spectre and personally I'd rather own a Spectre. And it looks like the Triathlon packs pretty large. But I cannot complain about any characteristic of its opening, flight, or landing at this point. And they seem to be very affordable. And the Gelvenor ZP isn't tricky to pack like some new ZPs. (Not that I find that a big problem anyway.) I am no expert by any means, and I haven't jumped a Spectre. I am, however, jumping Tri-175. Just a couple of remarks. Tri-160 is in fact 168 sq.ft. in size, so it's more comparable to a Specter-170 size-wise than it may sound. My Triathlon is made of a SoarCoat fabric, not Gelvenor, and it was a bitch to pack first dozen jumps or so (bought it brand new), then I got uset to it, and it's not a problem anymore... As of the packing volume, Tri-160 is actually packing smaller (419 cu.in) than a Spectre-170 (455 cu.in), according to a chart from ParaGear. Everyone who sees my rig for the first time gets a surprised look on their face when they find out I have a 175-size canopy packed in it -- it doesn't look that size, and the pack job is not very tight... Openings are really nice (I wish they were a bit faster), and I cannot complain about flying and landing a Tri either... -------------- We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
