teason 0 #51 September 22, 2006 QuoteThe future is NOT a hybrid tandem canopy usining lo po materials..... whoa, ZP is not the second coming of Christ! Zp is a superior fabric for a top skin but has little to no advantage on the bottom. We have both fully ZP and hybrid mantas for our student operations and there is no difference in performance. The difference comes in gathering the and packing. full ZPs are a bigger pain than a hybrid. (I've also jumped a fully ZP Firebolt and found no difference in flight with a hybrid Firebolt. F111 (not lopo) is also more resistant to tears than ZP. Just because ZP improved canopy flight characteristics doesn't main every inch has to be ZP for a canopy to be good. That's a rather narrow perspective. You have to look at pros and cons of each and observe the application. Better does not equal appropriate. It's why we have different types of suspension line. It's why we different canopy planforms and it's why we have discipline specific container systems.I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #52 September 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe future is NOT a hybrid tandem canopy usining lo po materials..... whoa, ZP is not the second coming of Christ! Zp is a superior fabric for a top skin but has little to no advantage on the bottom. We have both fully ZP and hybrid mantas for our student operations and there is no difference in performance. The difference comes in gathering the and packing. full ZPs are a bigger pain than a hybrid. (I've also jumped a fully ZP Firebolt and found no difference in flight with a hybrid Firebolt. F111 (not lopo) is also more resistant to tears than ZP. Just because ZP improved canopy flight characteristics doesn't main every inch has to be ZP for a canopy to be good. That's a rather narrow perspective. You have to look at pros and cons of each and observe the application. Better does not equal appropriate. It's why we have different types of suspension line. It's why we different canopy planforms and it's why we have discipline specific container systems. agree completely. I think the future is hybrid. but with the sail material for top skin and F111 everywhere else. Just watch zp may go the way of spectra - i.e. on its way out...... rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #53 September 25, 2006 On a relatively low use light loading canopy like an AFF canopy there is not as much of a problem with a hybrid canopy. However on a loaded canopy, that sees repeated use, a low porosity bottom skin is silly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #54 September 25, 2006 Why is it silly? It seams to work pretty well and one of the most popular Tandem canopies is still being made a a hybred. I do jump a nybred in my personal Tandem system, but have a full ZP in the work system. I like both and they both work fine. But I am open to new info and hoping you can share some here. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #55 September 25, 2006 >However on a loaded canopy, that sees repeated use, a low porosity bottom skin is silly. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #56 September 25, 2006 This female TM who weighs about 120 took some tiny petite girl who was closer to 100. I'm sure they could have used that FX-285. I was teasing her for loading whatever she was jumping at like 0.6 or something. She said that she probably should have used her regular main for the jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #57 September 29, 2006 Longevity of the canopy and preformance degrade issues.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #58 September 29, 2006 Actually, hybrid canopies are what is currently being used in pretty much every mfgr's new military system. We constantly load those canopies(360 sq ft) quite heavy ,be it personnel with equipment, tandems or tandem bundles on a regular basis and the hybrids are performing fantastic. It offers the best of both worlds and makes a lot of sense for tandems or military applications IMO."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base_rigger 0 #59 September 29, 2006 QuoteLongevity of the canopy and preformance degrade issues. May I see the empirical data?You know you have a problem when maggot is the voice of reason at the exit points Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #60 September 29, 2006 Are you putting 1500+ jumps on the hybrid systems or are they more of a few hundred max and replace them systems?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #61 September 29, 2006 QuoteOn a relatively low use light loading canopy like an AFF canopy there is not as much of a problem with a hybrid canopy. However on a loaded canopy, that sees repeated use, a low porosity bottom skin is silly. We don't do AFF, we do IAD. We do thousands of IADs per year. each of the canopies have done about 300-400 jumps each. Because of thye nature of the users, these canopies get alot of abuse. There is a fair difference betwenn a TM picking up his canopy and walking 100 feet to the hanger and a student that drags the canopy back from a feild a 1/4 mile away. I also have old mantas that saw 15+years of this type of abuse (mantas can really stand the test of time). I don't recall having any issues with the bottom skin because of it's f111. The product is proven.I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teason 0 #62 September 29, 2006 QuoteAre you putting 1500+ jumps on the hybrid systems or are they more of a few hundred max and replace them systems? Although I haven't done it with the hybrids, I've seen and personally used old f111 mantas with thousands of jumps, I repeat thousands of jumps before being decomisioned. They were not taken out of service because of bottom skin issues. The wear put on an F111 bottom skin is not a mystery.I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #63 September 29, 2006 QuoteAre you putting 1500+ jumps on the hybrid systems or are they more of a few hundred max and replace them systems? Military RAM air Canopies are considered servicable and kept in service as long as they pass regular maintenance inspections and fall within the life cycle. The life cycle of a canopy is 15 years from it's date of manufacture or 12 years once it is put into service, regardless of the number of jumps it has. Also keep in mind that the type of wear and tear an AFF student would put on a system, a Joe will be even worse. However,the riggers do an outstanding job of maintaining the equipment and fixing deficiencies during inspections. If there is anyone out there who puts a system to the test and is hard on equipment it's the Military bar none."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #64 September 30, 2006 > Longevity of the canopy and preformance degrade issues. Hmm. Between me and Brown, we once put about 2000 jumps on a PD190. Towards the end it would barely flare, and got relegated to use with only very light women. But it held together very well. What caused it to be eventually retired was a lack of flare due to the increasing porosity, not any inherent loss of strength or wear. Had it had a ZP topskin, the wing would not have increased its porosity nearly as rapidly, and would have lasted a lot longer. We also have two Silhouettes that have approx. 1000 jumps a piece. The 150 has been Amy's second canopy, and the 170 has been loaned out a lot. Both still work fine, and have kept their performance far longer than a PD150/PD170 would have. (Silhouettes have ZP topskins and F111 bottom skins.) In addition, the Pilot, a popular intermediate canopy, has F111* ribs; they don't wear appreciably faster than similar canopies like the Sabre 2. (* I use the term F111 for 0-3cfm non-ZP fabric, even though that's usually not what it is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #65 September 30, 2006 QuoteIn addition, the Pilot, a popular intermediate canopy, has F111* ribs; they don't wear appreciably faster than similar canopies like the Sabre 2. Does every ZP canopy has low-cfm ribs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 55 #66 September 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn addition, the Pilot, a popular intermediate canopy, has F111* ribs; they don't wear appreciably faster than similar canopies like the Sabre 2. Does every ZP canopy has low-cfm ribs? No. 95% of ZP canopies are ZP ONLY. BTW, do F-111 ribs make the packing easier (letting you "squeeze" the air more easily)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #67 September 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn addition, the Pilot, a popular intermediate canopy, has F111* ribs; they don't wear appreciably faster than similar canopies like the Sabre 2. Does every ZP canopy has low-cfm ribs? No. 95% of ZP canopies are ZP ONLY. BTW, do F-111 ribs make the packing easier (letting you "squeeze" the air more easily)? Considering that many people have bitched about the difficulty of packing a new Pilot, I would guess it is a non-factor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #68 October 2, 2006 but I am new to tandems with only 1000 in the last 7 years. Quote good grief, only 1000. matt you friggin' cherryHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #69 October 2, 2006 I know, I know. The little DZ I jump a bit at has 2 EZ's that are 10 year, 900 jump canopies and they are still in awesome shape. The wear seems nominal over an all ZP canopy. Sure they last longer but buy how much? and how much is lost over line sets (yeah I know they should all be relined on schedule but, who we follen?) since the ZP canpoies seem to be more finicky over bad lines. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #70 October 2, 2006 >BTW, do F-111 ribs make the packing easier . . . In my experience, not much. F111 bottom skin _does_ help though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JumpHog 0 #71 March 21, 2007 QuoteAlso note the HOP manufacturers (JoJo wing) have produced a tribraced tandem canopy sized at 300. It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy, the HXP 280. I found this video on their website: http://www.jojowing.com/skydiving/hxp/hoplanding.mpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #72 March 21, 2007 >It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy . . . You know, I was just thinking the other day that not enough tandem students were getting hurt in swooping accidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #73 March 22, 2007 Quote>It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy . . . You know, I was just thinking the other day that not enough tandem students were getting hurt in swooping accidents. Well if everyone thought like that, we'd still have crappy 500 sq ft F111 mains.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #74 March 24, 2007 Yes, but know when to say when. I think there should be a max wing loading allowed on tandems, and it shouldn't be 1.8. Just MHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #75 March 24, 2007 >Well if everyone thought like that, we'd still have crappy 500 sq ft F111 mains. Oh, I doubt it. When we went from the 525's to the Set-400's, I don't recall videos of tandem swoops making the rounds. We switched to them because they opened better, flew better and landed better, not because they were swoopable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 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
matthewcline 0 #69 October 2, 2006 I know, I know. The little DZ I jump a bit at has 2 EZ's that are 10 year, 900 jump canopies and they are still in awesome shape. The wear seems nominal over an all ZP canopy. Sure they last longer but buy how much? and how much is lost over line sets (yeah I know they should all be relined on schedule but, who we follen?) since the ZP canpoies seem to be more finicky over bad lines. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #70 October 2, 2006 >BTW, do F-111 ribs make the packing easier . . . In my experience, not much. F111 bottom skin _does_ help though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JumpHog 0 #71 March 21, 2007 QuoteAlso note the HOP manufacturers (JoJo wing) have produced a tribraced tandem canopy sized at 300. It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy, the HXP 280. I found this video on their website: http://www.jojowing.com/skydiving/hxp/hoplanding.mpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #72 March 21, 2007 >It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy . . . You know, I was just thinking the other day that not enough tandem students were getting hurt in swooping accidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #73 March 22, 2007 Quote>It looks like JoJo is now selling a 280 SqFt. x-braced tandem canopy . . . You know, I was just thinking the other day that not enough tandem students were getting hurt in swooping accidents. Well if everyone thought like that, we'd still have crappy 500 sq ft F111 mains.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #74 March 24, 2007 Yes, but know when to say when. I think there should be a max wing loading allowed on tandems, and it shouldn't be 1.8. Just MHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #75 March 24, 2007 >Well if everyone thought like that, we'd still have crappy 500 sq ft F111 mains. Oh, I doubt it. When we went from the 525's to the Set-400's, I don't recall videos of tandem swoops making the rounds. We switched to them because they opened better, flew better and landed better, not because they were swoopable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 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
billvon 2,400 #75 March 24, 2007 >Well if everyone thought like that, we'd still have crappy 500 sq ft F111 mains. Oh, I doubt it. When we went from the 525's to the Set-400's, I don't recall videos of tandem swoops making the rounds. We switched to them because they opened better, flew better and landed better, not because they were swoopable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites