0
Deimian

New Icarus X-Fire

Recommended Posts

Deimian

***
You can't just ignore some of the words in the sentence:
"creating a new class of ultra high performance, non-crossbraced wings"

I have no idea if this is true or not, but the semantics are clearly different than "creating a new class of ultra high performance wings".



Crossbracing is a construction technique to have a more rigid and efficient wing, while using fewer lines to minimize drag. That's all it is. I am not ignoring words. If they claim to have made a "ultra high performance wing"

But they don't. They wrote "creating a new class of ultra high performance, non-crossbraced wings". You removed a word from the middle of the sentence...

Quote


I agree though that what they meant is *probably* "a high performance wing one notch below crossbraced wings".



I don't think this is what they meant. As you point out this interpretation doesn't make much sense because "crossbraced" refers to the way a canopy is constructed, and not its performance.

I think the intended meaning is "a wing which has performance near the top of its class, and it's class is that of non-crossbraced wings", and I also think that's the most natural interpretation of the text they used.

Similarly "an ultra high performance human-powered bike" is a bicycle with high performance when compared to other bicycles, it's not a bicycle which is faster than a Yamaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an excellent point, I just checked and SIFE will be bringing the X-Fire with them. This means I can check out both the X-Fire and the Crossfire 3 at the Adventure Boogie next week....result!

Suppose I'd better check out one of those bargain basement Katana's sometime soon as well. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgrozev


But they don't. They wrote "creating a new class of ultra high performance, non-crossbraced wings". You removed a word from the middle of the sentence...



Well, for me the message of "new class of ultra high performance non-crossbraced wings" and "new class of ultra high performance [...] wings" is essentially the same. Ultra high performance is ultra high performance, independently of how you achieve it.

bgrozev


I think the intended meaning is "a wing which has performance near the top of its class, and it's class is that of non-crossbraced wings", and I also think that's the most natural interpretation of the text they used.



You are right. But because they created this new class (;)), it is not clear where this canopy seats in terms of aggressiveness and performance.

bgrozev


Similarly "an ultra high performance human-powered bike" is a bicycle with high performance when compared to other bicycles, it's not a bicycle which is faster than a Yamaha.



Well, I think in your example the classification is way more clear. No human can outperform a 600CC motorbike. But a good non-crossbraced canopy can outperform an old/bad crossbraced canopy.

EvilGenius

That is an excellent point, I just checked and SIFE will be bringing the X-Fire with them. This means I can check out both the X-Fire and the Crossfire 3 at the Adventure Boogie next week....result!

Suppose I'd better check out one of those bargain basement Katana's sometime soon as well. ;-)



Great! I'll wait for your extensive report then ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been told "its pretty hard to get truly prepared for a cross braced wing. It's always a big change". Maybe this fills the gap better than anything out there?

Going from the crossfire2 119 to the x-fire 119 was wise. It was the increase in performance that I wanted, but I never felt like I was behind the wing. Everything felt pretty intuitive after the first high pull.

When Dusty Smith jumped the demos a few months back I was still asking around about the crossfire3, Katana or Tesla. I've talked a lot of canopy w/ Dusty. All I got out of him in regards to my next wing was "fuck everything else. buy this canopy". The opening alone made up my mind. Oh, FYI... that 90 off heading in the video is the worst opening I had with it.

Also, I've noticed every manufacturers flight characteristics descriptions are vague and relative. Everyone's experience, technique and natural ability are so varied that its really hard to get an idea of a wing without flying it and seeing where it fits with you. I've had a lot of wings described to me and thought they flew WAY different than described.

Also, from an objective perspective, the development of high performance/midrange/advanced canopies has been stagnant. PD only makes newer HP cross braced wings. The progression of a canopy pilot 10 years ago is probably very different than the progression of a CP today. Every other sport progresses because younger generations learn on better equipment than their predecessors did. Other wings that were hot shit back in the day aren't in some peoples progressions today because their characteristics aren't what people want anymore. What people expect out of a canopy has changed and is becoming more uniform. Look at motocross. Dirtbikes used to be SO different from brand to brand. Now they're all damn near the exact same design. Each brand incorporated all the hot/new changes into their design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No landing vids. Sorry.

The rears on the x-fire took more input to get a response. The crossfire2 is trimmed so flat that the rears are really snappy. Almost unrealistic.

I think I'm just too use to how the crossfire2 recovers. Its such a short recovery arc. It's such a narrow window to hit just right.

I was being timid with the x-fire on landings. 90-120 degree turns at 380ft with all fronts. Had a few that almost went as far as my best 180+ on a crossfire2. Loads more potential there that I didn't even tap into.

Just buy the canopy. You'll be stoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fantastic duo Al & Pixie now have NZ Aerosports Canopies along with their usual Vectors at the UPT tent, they will be taking them on tour this summer, including the Flanders Boogie.

The SIFE guys have the demo canopies in their rigs so you get a double demo experience!

I will find one of the crossfire 3 threads and add a few words, don't get you hopes up too much at the prospect of my inexperienced ramblings. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EvilGenius

The fantastic duo Al & Pixie now have NZ Aerosports Canopies along with their usual Vectors at the UPT tent, they will be taking them on tour this summer, including the Flanders Boogie.



Great! Now I have an excuse to talk to them again, these guys are awesome. I have to thank Pixie anyway. Last year she measured me for a new container, and it fits like a glove.

EvilGenius


I will find one of the crossfire 3 threads and add a few words, don't get you hopes up too much at the prospect of my inexperienced ramblings. ;-)



Well, any shed of information will help to clear the unknowns of new canopies ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I could add my opinion for what its worth, I have roughly 600 jumps on crossfire 2 129, 50 on a crossfire 119, tried the xfire 113 (new standard size) have to say I was blown away, openings are slightly faster than my cf2 but just a soft and never more than 90 degree off heading, perfect for tandem camera.

So far after 15 jumps I have to say I am sold, going to get myself one. I would add that I do feel its a big step up from a crossfire 2(My loading is 1.8ish)

Dave
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deimian

***
But they don't. They wrote "creating a new class of ultra high performance, non-crossbraced wings". You removed a word from the middle of the sentence...



Well, for me the message of "new class of ultra high performance non-crossbraced wings" and "new class of ultra high performance [...] wings" is essentially the same. Ultra high performance is ultra high performance, independently of how you achieve it.


That's like saying "a Superkart is not an ultra-high performance racing vehicle because it only goes 260 km/h, and F1 cars go 360 km/h, and ultra-high performance is independent of how you achieve that". But within the class of gokarts, which quite often are a stepping stone to Formula racing, Superkarts are ultra-high performance, and making that kind of construction go 260 km/h is definitely no feeble feat.

For better or worse, "cross-braced" has come to be a term embodying certain qualities and expectations, and much like "elliptical", it's a shitty term when you want to define it precisely, but it's definitely used with a specific intent.

Quote


bgrozev


I think the intended meaning is "a wing which has performance near the top of its class, and it's class is that of non-crossbraced wings", and I also think that's the most natural interpretation of the text they used.



You are right. But because they created this new class (;)), it is not clear where this canopy seats in terms of aggressiveness and performance.


You can substitute "new breed" mentally, which is the more conventional marketing flair used for this kind of thing then :)
"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a demo Xfire 124 and was able to make 5 jumps with it on 7/15. I am not a hardcore swooper and jump a Crossfire 2 (129). When I want a fast landing, I use the toggles rather than the risers. That being said, I really liked the Xfire. The canopy has a lot of flare power, even when making plain Jane straight in approach. I would consider getting one but not before trying a Crossfire 3 for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got a X-Fire 124 too, for demoing. I could make just 4 jumps, in very windy conditions. My normal canopy is a Sabre 2 120 and my WL is ~1.55

-The X-Fire packed way smaller than my Sabre 2. But my Sabre 2 has a really big logo with 3 layers of material in some areas, so it packs way bigger than normal. The same week I demoed a Katana 120, and I used the same loop for the Katana and for the X-Fire. I think it might have been a bit softer on the X-Fire, but it is difficult to compare directly.

-Openings are soft and well staged, but not super long. 3 times it was perfectly on heading. The 4th time I had a single twist. It still opened on heading and kept flying levelled. I blame the packer (me) for that twist.

-It is gorgeous. Not important, but it really is gorgeous.

-The harness sensitivity is amazing. I obviously can't compare with VKs or Petras/Leias, but it was way more sensitive than my Sabre 2, and more than the Katana I demoed. I am used to lean a lot on my harness for my last turn (90). That keeps my Sabre 2 diving a tiny bit more, but in the X-Fire, after I let go of the fronts, it kept turning. I countered it by leaning on the other side and started turning towards it instead of straightening. I kept countering turns with harness input almost until landing. Very, very sensitive. But I loved it! I just need to get used to it, I am probably just used to "overdo it" in a less sensitive wing.

-I couldn't play too much with it, but I had the feeling that it has way more range on rears than my Sabre 2 and maybe also more than the Katana. Again, difficult to say with just 4 jumps (2 on the Katana). I didn't land on rears any of them, but I tried them up high. It seemed to slow down steadily, nice and easy for a long time after a turn. Turning on rears is way more radical on the X-Fire than on the Sabre 2, or even Crossfire and Katana.

-I don't feel like it dived significantly more than my Sabre 2. A bit more yes, much more, no. But I was doing 90s. I suspect the difference gets bigger with larger turns. I had the same feeling with the Katana, just for reference. But maybe expectations play a role here as well. I was expecting the Katana to just drop out of the sky. It wasn't as much as I expected.

-Fronts are heavier than my Sabre 2. I suspect a more efficient turn on this wing would use less fronts and more harness. But that is coming straight out of my ass. Also I didn't like the loops on the risers they had, they were lower than my louie loops, and made of type 17, plain and simple. Maybe that played a role also on what I felt.

-During my first jump with it I came out of my turn way too high. After that it didn't want to land, it kept gliding forever, or so I felt, even with significant wind.

-I think it has a lot of flare, but the one I tried had way too much slack on the brakes. During the first 2 jumps I had barely enough power to level out and run on touch down (remember, it was windy). The tail started deflecting when I had my hands at my lower chest level, more or less. I asked them to shorten the brakes, they noticed that they had indeed more slack than other sizes they tried (I think I was one of the first jumping that particular canopy), and then I jumped it again. I think they shorten the brakes 2". After that it had way more flare power than before, but I still think there was too much slack.

I liked the wing a lot. The overall feeling I had is that there is a significant difference between its handling and the handling of a Sabre 2. It felt more advanced than a Katana (which is less sensitive on harness, might have less range on rears and is way lighter in fronts). The Katana flew more similar to my Sabre 2 than the X-Fire. However, the X-Fire does all that without diving scarily, at least with 90s, so I wouldn't necessarily say that it is more advanced than a Katana. It just flies differently. I'd love to demo one again, and play a bit more with fronts, and see if it makes sense to have shorter brake lines. My next canopy will probably be either a new X-Fire or a second hand Katana. Price plays a role, and both seem like a reasonable step from a Sabre 2 120. Crossfire 3 is also in the "to consider" list. Tesla as well, but I saw one during last week whose whole C and D sections were fluttering at landing various times, once even scarily. It might be a one off though, or an effect of the windy conditions. I think the owner is checking what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the review. I jump a Sabre2 135 at ~1.5, so nice to get a review of a similar size and wingloading. Post up the Crossfire3 if you try it.

Seth
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are my observations from flying a demo X-Fire 124 for two weekends. I don't have much experience flying different canopies, so instead of giving general characteristics, I'll stick to comparing it to my current canopy, a Crossfire2 129. I am just getting into swooping, and that's what I was mainly evaluating it for. This seems to be a common situation for people, so I hope this comparison will be of some use.

I have an exit weight of 195lbs and the wing-loadings of the cf2 and xf are similar: ~1.51 and ~1.57lbs/sqft respectively. I only made 19 jumps on the X-Fire.

The openings were quite different from other canopies I've flown (crossfire2, safire2s, sabre2). For the first few jumps I was opening at 10kft (and density altitude of ~14kft), at terminal, and they were a little sharp (FlySight data shows peaks of about 3g, but I am not sure it can be trusted).
Not uncomfortably sharp, but close. I started to split roll the nose, and that helped a lot. If all openings are like this I would be happy, but I am slightly worried that any outliers (say, 50% faster) will be painful.

Out of 19 openings, 16 were head-on (within, say, 30˚), one did a 90˚ turn, one did a 360˚ turn, and one did a 360˚ with line twists. The last one has two and a half twists, and it did not dive. That's not much data, but it looks good to me. I think my cf2 has a similar rate of >180˚ turns, and body
position could be part of the reason.

The brakes are stowed very shallowly, so popping one toggle doesn't have much of an effect. This is also apparent from the FlySight descent rate data: 12-13mph with brakes stowed, and 13-14mph with brakes unstowed.
Compare with 7-8mph with brakes stowed and 12-13mph with brakes unstowed on my cf2.

The canopy is overall more responsive to input than my
cf2. For toggles and rears the difference is small, but for harness and front risers it is significant. The range of the toggles (from start of tail deflection to stall) is shorter, and they are heavier. Similarly, it stalls on rears with less input.
I noticed some over-steer for front riser and harness turns, but not much (the cf2 doesn't over-steer at all, as far as I can tell). The toggles are a little bit twitchier, I needed to pay some attention to flare symmetrically.

The front risers are heavier than the cf2. Once it enters a dive it is much easier to keep it diving by maintaining harness input. I can keep it in a turn indefinitely, while on my cf2 I can not even get a consistent 270 because it starts to recover unless I get it just right. However, once the input is released it seems to recover in a way similar to the cf2.

With enough speed the cf2 recovers to flying completely level. The xf seems to take longer to recover, but at least on one occasion I see it go to a descent rate of just 3mph, and I suspect that with more speed it might go level too. I wish I had more time to test, as that was the part I was most interested in. In short, the recovery arc seems longer, but similar to that of the cf2.

In a 90˚ turn, executed in a similar way I lose 380ft on my cf2 and ~450-480ft on the xf. But it's hard to compare because I didn't have time to make my turns consistent enough.

It feels like there is more power in the flare than the cf2.

The glide, thankfully, is nothing like a katana. It is perhaps a little steeper in full flight than my cf2, but not by much.

It felt stable and steerable in deep brakes.

All in all, I was happy with the canopy and I definitely like it better than my cf2 for my use (starting to swoop). I wish I could also compare it to the Crossfire3 and the Tesla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say I am a little dissapointed with the canopy. I have jumped an x-fire 113 for 50+ jumps and was hoping it would be alot more aggressive. Previously I have jumped some different sized crossfire 2:s and a katana 120. My main reason for switching to the x-fire was to get a canopy to continue learning high performance landings on, while still having better openings than my previous katana.

The openings are great, a bit towards the quicker opening end of the spectrum, but I've so far never been slammed by it. It's really responsive on the harness and flies great. For swooping however, I feel that I just can't get it to dive enough (despite getting canopy coaching). I start my 90 degree front riser turn at about 120 meters with a wingloading of 1.65. With my katana, that was a size larger, I started the same turn at 150 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fly a Crossfire 2 150 @ 1.83:1.

I demoed the Tesla 150 and the X-Fire 153.

My typical landing is at 90 degrees @ 300 Ft Double fronts, let go of one for the turn and bring it back to double and continue with final adjustments if necessary compensating with the harness...

Didn't have to change initiation altitude with any of them or technique.

This new wings require for you to be steady on the harness, lots of roll on them with either toggles or back risers.

However they sustain your weight longer at slower speeds, as in the last bits of your landing.

The stitching and sewing on the X-fire is of more finesse than the Tesla.

X-Fire at the moment (icarus will fix this) has way too long brake lines, I reduced them by 3 without affecting tail deflection when front risering and it flared better...

I didn't fall in love with the X-fire but I did with the Tesla.

These are new Schuemann Planforms without traditional stabilizers, and you have to really demo them to get a feel of their characteristics.

PD showed a video of a similar canopy like 3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nkok0Tn0z4

NZ Aerosports has something in the works as well, you can see it at the minute 00:40.
https://vimeo.com/122159755

FlyBird has a canopy on his webpage but not on its list of canopies
http://www.flyfirebird.com/fb/canopies

Let's see how those wings fly...

C-ya

Felipe
--
Blue Skies
NO FEARS, NO LIMITS, NO MONEY...
"A Subitánea et Improvísa Morte, Líbera nos, Domine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, nothing to do with performance, both are great wings with similar characteristics that come with the type of planform both use. It's just a mere subjective appreciation.

I had to adjust the brakes on the X-fire in order for it to flare better, until I did that the toggle stroke was very long and I found myself a whole weekend comparing it to the Tesla. Which flew awesome the first time. I think this is the reason why I said that...

The next weekend when I adjusted the brakes, I felt much better under the X-fire, and the wing performed great.

I would be super happy owning any of these wings.

Now, Fluid Wings is local, not a huge company like PD or Icarus, my friends fly their canopies and I like them. This also plays part on how I feel about the Tesla.

Felipe
--
Blue Skies
NO FEARS, NO LIMITS, NO MONEY...
"A Subitánea et Improvísa Morte, Líbera nos, Domine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the past 6 weeks I've put 55 jumps on an X-fire 124, which I load at ~2.0 lb/sqft. I'm mostly an FS team jumper, no experience with or desire for competitive/serious swooping: my standard landing is a front riser 90 with toggles rather than rear riser inputs. I also travel a lot so having something that opens reliably regardless of who packed it is incredibly important. As background, I have >4500 jumps, most recently spread across the following canopy/wingloading combinations (from my log excel spreadsheet).

1036 jumps Zulu-132 @ 1.8; 326 on Velo-120 @ 2.1; 798 on Katana-150 @ 1.6 and once beyond that a couple of thousand on Sabre2's @ 1.4-1.6.

My thoughts/impressions so far:
Openings are generally quick but not hard, reliable, and on-heading. There is very little if any snivel, the initial inflation feels positive and well controlled. I did notice that the slider is quite a bit larger than the one on my Zulu, and had a tendency to hang up just barely above the slinks, which on this particular demo setup is about two inches longer than my arms, so I have to open up my chest strap for the slider to drop down to where I can comfortably reach/stow it. I only have data from this one setup so this may or may not be a consistent thing. I'd consider 53/55 openings to be "nearly perfect" with two outliers: I had one with pretty substantial line twists which I was able to recover without too much drama, the canopy inflated normally and was parallel with the horizon so I just had to wait out the twists. At this wing loading and planform I expect anything that twists AND dives will likely need to be cutaway VERY quickly. I also had one opening where the slider stayed up at the base of the inflating canopy for perhaps 7-8 seconds, which in hindsight isn't much longer than my Katana sniveled on almost every jump, but compared to the normally very-quick-to-start inflation of the Zulu and X-fire was definitely an uncomfortable exception. The jumps were spread across AT LEAST seven different packers (plus me) and the openings all felt more or less the same regardless of who packed it.

Full flight seems flatter than my Katana, certainly flatter than the Velo, and probably a little steeper than my Zulu. Getting back from long spots didn't seem terribly hard - I couldn't tell much difference in glide ratios for toggles vs rear risers but also don't have a ton of data there. Toggle input is what I'd expect from a highly-elliptical but not cross braced - it will snap into a turn aggressively if you want it to, but it's not hyper-responsive to inputs, either. Harness input is similar - of all the canopies I've jumped this one might be the "most ideal" degree of harness responsibility for me, although this is obviously a highly subjective and personal preference. I can easily get it to go where I want just by shifting weight, but it also never felt "hypersensitive" or "harness twitchy" like some canopies I've jumped (I'm looking at you here, Mamba and Sensei). On one jump I actually stalled the wing (unintentionally, I was trying to stay with a much slower canopy to shoot some video) and the recovery was less exciting than I would have expected from a canopy this size and loading... but given those really short output chords I wouldn't want to let this thing get anywhere near a deep stall, either. Barrel rolls and aggressive toggle inputs gave exactly what I expected - at no point did the canopy ever feel like it was getting mushy or that it was running away from me.

On landing, mine has what I'd call "really good but not phenomenal" flare power. I've yet to jump anything that flares like my Velocity did, but engineering a canopy is like everything else in engineering: a series of tradeoffs that people have to make. The flare seemed a little better than my Zulu (possibly because of the slightly higher wing loading) and probably about the same amount of "raw lift" as the Katana, although the sweet spot is in a very different location. My personal view is that the location of the flare shouldn't matter as long as it's consistent and you can find it on your particular rig/riser setup -- I contend that if you're experienced enough to be considering a wing like this you should be good enough not to care whether landing it efficiently requires moving the toggle four inches in one direction or another compared to a different canopy. But hey, I'm a judgemental fucker that way.... I jumped in density altitudes ranging from about 2500ft elevation and 85F temps down to sea level and ~55F... other than the slightly higher speeds it didn't seem to be particularly sensitive to this. I don't land/flare on rears so can't provide any input (pardon the pun!) there.


Editorial comments:
I really, really like this wing. I think it flies and lands a little better than my Zulu and opens better than my Katana or Velocity ever did. I travel a lot and team train many different places with a lot of unknown packers, so having something that opens consistently and is ... uh... "highly tolerant of suboptimal packing technique" is very important to me. As much as I loved my Velo, I eventually sold it because I couldn't reliably trust that the openings were going to be what I wanted and with the long snivel and inflation I didn't want to be solving those types of problems at 1800 feet. I spent the last 1000 jumps on Zulus in large part because they were easy enough to land, but mostly because I felt completely comfortable pitching a PC at 2200 feet with 200 other people in the air and not worrying that I was going to get some snilvelly, unsteerable during inflation, likely-off-heading ball of crap. The X-fire seems very "packer proof", in this regard it's very similar to the Zulu. It's definitely not a wing for the inexperienced, but it also never seemed truly unforgiving. If you're looking for a really good everyday wing and don't want to be bothered with the extra work that comes with really really high performance canopies, I can highly recommend this one.
  • Like 1

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