rhys 0 #26 September 19, 2006 QuoteWhy is this being developed? I just don't see a practicle purpose for it Gyro told me about this one, it was made by request. But sub 300 tandem canopies are a thing of the future, of that i am certain."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #27 September 19, 2006 QuoteWhat's the 'Daedalus Project' (as written on the canopy)? Some subdivision of Icarus? Yes but until now I only heard of the ULTRA high performance canopies like the JXV comming from daedelus. This is a liitle differentYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmeh 0 #28 September 19, 2006 This is definitely no photoshop. If I remember correctly, it was Brett Newman who was doing some jumps on this canopy out at Toogoolawah a couple of weeks ago. I know I'm hardly experienced, but I will say, it looked fantastic flying. Really solid, and almost completely smooth in the afternoon northerly turbulence we get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #29 September 19, 2006 QuoteThis is definitely no photoshop. If I remember correctly, it was Brett Newman who was doing some jumps on this canopy out at Toogoolawah a couple of weeks ago. I know I'm hardly experienced, but I will say, it looked fantastic flying. Really solid, and almost completely smooth in the afternoon northerly turbulence we get. How were the landings? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #30 September 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is definitely no photoshop. If I remember correctly, it was Brett Newman who was doing some jumps on this canopy out at Toogoolawah a couple of weeks ago. I know I'm hardly experienced, but I will say, it looked fantastic flying. Really solid, and almost completely smooth in the afternoon northerly turbulence we get. How were the landings? I'l refer somen here who may have more info.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LukeOliver 0 #31 September 20, 2006 Real photo, taken with one of CookieComposite's belly mounts I'm guessing. That's definitely Bretto's nose. It's Redcliffe, Queensland, Australia. It's a pretty progressive shop, and to my mind counters much of the alleged corruption and exploitation of workers in the tandem industry up that way. Yes, it's an Extreme FX, scaled up to 285 sq ft. Bretto has like 9500 tandems last I looked, super current, he's a rigger, and has the physique which makes it all look easy. The chances of anyone getting their feet to the ground before him are minimal, and I've watched him react whilst a student is still /thinking/ about doing something untoward. It offers little to the first time jumper (other than the landing takes less time so you worry less). Many licensed parachutists have been on the front as well, and it's been pond swooping according to the videos I've seen. I would suggest - without referring it to Bretto, so inviting trouble - that at some stage you start doing tandems for yourself rather than the student. There might be an element of that, but having worked with him I see customer service happening as well. If you're going to be potentially loaded at the 2.0 mark, crossbraced canopies have demonstrable advantages. Collapsible sliders on Tandem canopies help if you're going to jump in max legal wind limits. I don't have a problem with it. But it's not for me. Me and my new friends will stick with my 330 Crossfire ;-) L. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #33 September 20, 2006 QuoteBut sub 300 tandem canopies are a thing of the future, of that i am certain. Really? Then the future is already here, i.e. Firebolt 298.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #34 September 21, 2006 Got video? On Skydivingmovies.com or elsewhere online that is....I'd like to watch it. Thanks. Or of that Crossfire 330 or Firebolt 298 as well. That sounds more HP than most tandem canopies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DALAILAMA 0 #35 September 21, 2006 Bill Booth summed it up the best when he said the more safety items we develope in our sport, the more we feel the need to tempt fate or push the envelope. I just have one question, only open to serious people who care about the safety of others. With the advances in safety and new equipment today, why cant we be content. Why do we feel the need to go faster and farther in a realm where the goal is to land safe and not cool?"Dropzone.com, where uneducated people measuring penises, has become an art form" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #36 September 21, 2006 Why do we feel the need to go faster and farther in a realm where the goal is to land safe and not cool? *** Isn't that what they tried telling Columbus? Some people wants to know...what's 'over there'...some people are content with the way thing are. 'Most" of us tend to push the envelope...if it wasn't done, we'd still be jumping 'Rags' Some want to KNOW what the edge looks like. Why push it??? It's because WE CAN! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DALAILAMA 0 #37 September 21, 2006 "Because we can" is an interesting saying. I personally don't believe it to be an appropriate one when it comes to the lives of our passengers. I will be the first to volunteer when it comes to research and developement of modern parachuting (it is part of my duty description) Making faster smaller (less forgiving) tandem canopies is in my opinion pushing the envelope. I believe there are smaller tandem I's out there (Skymonkey One) that need smaller canopies so they are compatable with the normal wing loadings and have compatable canopies to ensure proper pressurization. My question is, how small is small enough? To answer you...No that isn't what they told columbus. Exploration and the need to discover is different from the risks to unaware passengers that want to experience a (safe) thrill. I appreciate your reply. I always look for a different point of view."Dropzone.com, where uneducated people measuring penises, has become an art form" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #38 September 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut sub 300 tandem canopies are a thing of the future, of that i am certain. Really? Then the future is already here, i.e. Firebolt 298. The future is NOT a hybrid tandem canopy usining lo po materials.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,684 #39 September 21, 2006 >there are smaller tandem I's out there (Skymonkey One) that >need smaller canopies so they are compatable with the normal wing >loadings and have compatable canopies to ensure proper pressurization. I think the "you need to load your canopy enough to pressurize it properly . . . . for safety's sake, of course" angle isn't valid at all. I've landed 520 square foot canopies loaded under .4 to 1 with no problems. I am sure there are TM's out there who are happier with zippy tandem canopies - but that does not equal safer canopies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #40 September 21, 2006 Exploration and the need to discover is different from the risks to unaware passengers that want to experience a (safe) thrill. *** Perhaps my answer was interpreted a bit cavalier in it's tone..that aside, I still think smaller and lighter WILL be the wave of the future. Advancements in materials and wing design have seen to that in nearly every other sector of the sport. As I said earlier in this thread, just because it's cross braced and 'smaller' than what's in current use (for the most part) doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'swooper only' canopy, or for that matter more of a risk than any OTHER canopy if it's not flown within it's design parameters for specific tasks. As to the 'lives of our passengers'...I seriously doubt that ANY paying customers will be used as test subjects to prove a theory regarding smaller canopies. But if it CAN be shown that a certain wing design and size configuration has advantages...should we dismiss it only because it's 'different' that what we have been using? I shudder to think where Tandem Instruction would be now if everyone took that view... When I got MY Tandem rating, the manufactures were 'testing' a new idea that on it's face looked pretty dangerous and unnecessary...what good would a Drogue POSSIBLY be? AND both the main and reserve was 325 sqft of F-111...nobody MADE anything better, so there wasn't anything better. Time and trial brought us to where we are today, I for one believe we should CONTINUE to develop and advance in every way possible. Smaller, lighter, easier to pack, less toggle pressure, more responsive...those are GOOD things! Will a TM be able to transition from a 500 sqft to a 290 without a full understanding of what and how to safely perform ...of course not! Overall the 'professionals' in this sport seem to be a pretty sharp group that doesn't rush into anything without thinking it through...sometimes a bit too 'un-rushed', but safety is of course paramount. That said, look back and realize that the square canopies a FJS trains on from day one, is heads above in performance...of any canopy available back when you had to PROVE 200 jumps just to BUY a square. Is it MORE of a risk to train a FJS on a square that a huge (say 50') round? You bet it is... Why do we do it ANYWAY? Because WE CAN! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #41 September 21, 2006 QuoteOr of that Crossfire 330 or Firebolt 298 as well. That sounds more HP than most tandem canopies. I think the Crossfire 330 was a joke (although if they made an FX285 for someone, I guess there's no reason they couldn't make the Crossfire, although I'd make it a Crossfire2 ;-)) but I put a video of me surfing a Hop 330, up on skydivingmovies.com There are also Icarus 330s, Next 340s, Sigma 340s and Firebolt 298s out there which are going to be quite sportySkydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packing_jarrett 0 #42 September 22, 2006 yeah jumpshack has a landing of the firebolt 298Na' Cho' Cheese Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #43 September 22, 2006 ...video of me surfing a Hop 330 *** Nice! Question...how are the landings if you come straight in without the slight 1/4 turn as on the video? The turn wasn't much but it did seem to add a bit of speed for you. I'm just curious how it lands using a long straight final. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydog 2 #44 September 22, 2006 The HOP330nis fine on straight in approaches. Surge stall as well as 90's for finals do produce a speed increase. Also note the HOP manufacturers (JoJo wing) have produced a tribraced tandem canopy sized at 300. BrynJourney not destination..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #45 September 22, 2006 QuoteWhy do we feel the need to go faster and farther in a realm where the goal is to land safe and not cool? But that's not a universal goal, for some the goal IS to land cool (not me mine is just to land unbroken)You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #46 September 22, 2006 QuoteThe HOP330nis fine on straight in approaches. Surge stall as well as 90's for finals do produce a speed increase. What he said QuoteAlso note the HOP manufacturers (JoJo wing) have produced a tribraced tandem canopy sized at 300. I've been searching for a reference for this. I remember a previous quote saying something about needing a lot of space to land it but can't find it. Anyone else remember it?Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #47 September 22, 2006 QuoteOnly a matter of time until we start having tandem pond swoop competitions. Put an expeienced guy on the fron flying the toggles, guy on the back works the risers! It's been done. It was done at The Ranch one time (as a demo) during the PSN in 2001 (unless I am mixing up venues) and it was done at WFFC in 2003. In 2003 it was Howard Adams swooping the pond with Rosalyn Trach under a Firebolt 298; quite impressive. Back on topic though: I would really love, just for shits and grins, to have a crossbraced tandem main in the 260 foot range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydog 2 #48 September 22, 2006 http://www.jojowing.com/company/news.php?newskat=skydiving&ide=265 This should do it. Apparently they have been used in austral;ia. BrynJourney not destination..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 136 #49 September 22, 2006 QuoteBack on topic though: I would really love, just for shits and grins, to have a crossbraced tandem main in the 260 foot range.I know it's not crossbraced, but would a 260 Crossfire be imaginable ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #50 September 22, 2006 QuoteBack on topic though: I would really love, just for shits and grins, to have a crossbraced tandem main in the 260 foot range I'd love that. With a 250LBS student it'd put me, well "us", at 1.73... Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
