0
Pfarnacho

Icarus crossfire2 question

Recommended Posts

Im going to demo the icarus crossfire 2 this next weekend ( both 139 and 149)
Icarus recommends a minimum of 1.4 wing load
On the 149, i'll be at 1.2
Are there any dangers to being below the recommended wing load?
How is being at 1.2 going to affect the performance of the canopy, if any?
Has any one flown a crossfire2 under the recommended wing load of 1.4?

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why jumping a fully eliptical canopy and deal with all the issues that come with a highly tapered airfoil when you don't load it enough to get any benefits out of it?

I jumped a 149 at 1.3 and a 120 at 1.75

The 120 opened much more consistent, after talking to some other jumpers they also said, they experienced better openings when loading their xfires more.
Other canopies might also be more forgiving and stable in turbulences at this wingloading.
Recommendations by the manufacturer mostly have a reasoning behind them, maybe call Icarus and ask, if they would be okay with you jumping a crossfire at that loading and if not, why?

Just my 0.02 cents :)

Keep us uptated pls, would like to know how you liked the crossis
-------------------------------------------------------

To absent friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At lower wingloadings it will be very soft and will hate any turbulence. Wait till you have more experience to jump a more loaded one, or jump a Safire which will handle better at the lower WL
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I jumped one at 1.2 or so as I was working my way back down to my own gear after a year long layoff. I liked it. You won't get "maximum performance" out of it, but it will still be a good test run of the canopy.

I'm not a swooper at all, even on my own CF2 loaded at about 1.6. I love the way it performs as a regular canopy, and I find that it has a ton of flare power even with a non-front-riser approach. Openings are soft, and although it has a tendency to open off heading, in 700+ CF2 jumps, I can count the number of times I've had line twists on one hand.

But yes, on a lightly loaded CF2, avoid turbulence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've jumped on at 1.2. x-fire2 169. Did about solid 100 jumps on it. Nice openings. I never had issues of it collapsing or anything. But my friend who weighed the same went thru the dust devil with my canopy and it folded in half. Reopened in about 50 ft. I was trying to sell that canopy to him, and yeah, he didn't buy it afterwards.

Was that the effect of wingload or the dust devil? Not so sure, but low wingloading didn't help either way.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great info guys. Thank you for all the inputs. Makes sense..
Ok..ill demo it this weekend. Ill be safe about it. Lots of thermals this time a year at my home DZ.

Ill keep u guys posted. Thank you again for all the info. Blue skies. Be safe out there this weeekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are there any dangers to being below the recommended wing load?
How is being at 1.2 going to affect the performance of the canopy, if any?



Replay to the similar question, that I asked Icarus some time ago, did not seem to leave too much room for interpretation. Of course this is a bit contradictory to some opinions that you will find searching this forum :)
"It is absolutely not recommended to go below a 1,4 WL on the Crossfire 2. Because of the shape of the nose, and because it is not crossbraced, in the event of turbulence, it can behave erratically and potentially collapse. If you load the canopy a bit higher, than you would get the typical performance expected from an elliptical, non-crossbraced canopy."
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

Stephen Hawking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Are there any dangers to being below the recommended wing load?

Stability would be the big one, followed by poor openings (not due to wingload, just due to that planform doesn't seem to do great at larger sizes.)

I would strongly recommend you also try the Safire 2 at that wingloading. It will be more stable, the openings will be better and performance will be about the same. Overall it's a better canopy for larger sizes/lower loadings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pfarnacho

Great info guys. Thank you for all the inputs. Makes sense..
Ok..ill demo it this weekend. Ill be safe about it. Lots of thermals this time a year at my home DZ.

Ill keep u guys posted. Thank you again for all the info. Blue skies. Be safe out there this weeekend.



You'll be safe on it how? ...You were just told several times, that it is NOT a good idea, and NOT to jump it at under 1.4. One post even a cut-n-paste directly from the mfr.

But it sounds like you're just gonna do it anyway. [:/]

I just love what people call, or consider (or somehow self-justify) as "safe" ...even after they've been told differently/better! - :S

Whatever.
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pobrause

Why jumping a fully eliptical canopy and deal with all the issues that come with a highly tapered airfoil when you don't load it enough to get any benefits out of it?


I don't understand this statement.

An elliptical planform has many benefits (also some downsides) at any wingloading including increased responsiveness to inputs and a more efficient use of lift from having more of the airfoil producing lift with a vertical vector and less at the ends where the vector is less vertical.

I think you may be regurgitating the under-loaded cross-braced canopy argument, which does hold water for reasons I won't go into now, and applying it to non-x-braced ellipticals.

Perhaps you could explain why the OP won't get "any benefits out of it" at 1.2, but at 1.4 it would all be tickety-boo?
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... Ill be safe about it. Lots of thermals this time a year at my home DZ.......
...................................................................

Your logic escapes me.
Thermals plus any canopy equals danger.
The only difference between thermals and dust devils is their speed of rotation.
Choice of canopy makes little difference if you fly through a thermal or dust devil. The world's fanciest canopy will not save you if you fly through a strong dust devil.
The smartest skydivers avoid flying near thermals and dust devils.
Both thermals and dust devils can kill you.
The only certainty is that coyotes will enjoy cleaning up your mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps you could explain why the OP won't get "any benefits out of it" at 1.2, but at 1.4 it would all be tickety-boo?



Your ram-air canopy is flying as long as it is pressurized. If it was designed for higher WL, means higher higher speed needed ,it would not be as stable as designed at lower speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pfarnacho

Ill be safe about it.



You're intentionally denying logic.

You can't be safe about jumping a canopy outside of the manufacturer recommended specifications.

I have a 139 crossfire2 as a second rig canopy. Great parachute if loaded correctly. Even at 1.43 which is my loading on it, the canopy is very mushy. I will not fly it in moderate wind or on days with any amount of bumpiness to the air.

Edit:

phoenixlpr

Quote

Perhaps you could explain why the OP won't get "any benefits out of it" at 1.2, but at 1.4 it would all be tickety-boo?



Your ram-air canopy is flying as long as it is pressurized. If it was designed for higher WL, means higher higher speed needed ,it would not be as stable as designed at lower speed.



It's more than not flying stable even. The wing deforms easy if there isn't pressure in the canopy. It literally loses performance and doesn't fly the way it's supposed to. You would have better performance out of a canopy that has a completely open nose. You need the wing to maintain shape to have proper airflow and generate maximum lift and performance.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I jumped an Xfire2 169 at 1.2, opened and flew great, almost always on heading no line twists in 300 jumps. Jumped a 149 at 1.4 Opened about the same, handling in turbulence about the same, but turned and landed faster which was to be expected. Love the XF2. If you want the best answer to your question though, and any question relating to canopies or gear, ask the manufacturer. They designed and build the canopy so they'll be able to best tell you pro's and con's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I load my Crossfire fairly lightly at barely 1.5 and it still doesn't seem to handle turbulence well. At least not as well as the Sabre2 I had before it. I assume this is from the small nose openings and flatter glide. Those low loadings should probably be avoided as everyone had been saying. Stick with a Sabre/Safire/etc for a couple more downsizes to avoid this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for all the input... Icarus called me but i couldnt get to the phone... Calling Larry everyday to see what he has to say about the WL.

Jumped the 149 10 times this weekend and had no issues but i do want to ask Icarus all the technical questions. Thx again for all the comments. All well taken. Blue skies

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.

Guest
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.

0