XFire vs Crossfire 3... Any comments on which is best?

[kgroves233 0]

Yes, the question is relative. I will be ordering a new canopy soon, and discovered that these canopies are made by two different companies. Just how close in design are the two? Who is jumping what, and how much do you love it?

[NV1 0]

The XFire and Crossfire 3 differ in many points.
Shape, construction and performance are different.
I can only reply on the XFire - not on the Crossfire 3

I fly a XFire 88 (custom size) @ 2.1 WL.
The Openings are great - on heading and soft - but slightly quicker than the crossfires.

The performance is very close to a crossbraced canopy. The dive is slightly less then the JVX that i jumped before but the XFire is alot more sensitive on every control. Wether it is frontriser, harness or just the Toggles.

What i love about the XFire is that you have a very light frontriser. You can adjust it while flying your turn without any big effort. It is fast - a really fun canopy.[:)

[Deimian 43]

As you said, "which is best" is subjective.

The Crossfire 3 has the same planform than the Crossfire 2. They have reshaped the panels to make a smoother surface and they have lengthened a bit the recovery arc. I believe the openings are also a bit quicker, as some people felt the openings of the Crossfire 2 as too slow. So if you like how the Crossfire 2 flies, but would like it to dive a bit longer, you'll like the Crossfire 3.

The X-Fire is a completely different beast, designed for a similar kind of jumper. The openings are soft, on heading and well staged, and a tad quicker than Crossfire 2 too. The recovery arc is also longer than Crossfire 2, without being as long as the Katana. The planform is completely different than Crossfire 2/3 or Katana. It is similar to Valkyries/Peregrines/Petras/Leias/Sofias/Teslas/HKs/Airwolfs/HSs/Helixes. That means that it is more efficient than traditional designs (more lift, which translates into longer swoops and better glide ratio, all other things being equal), but more sensitive to input, so it needs more work to get used to it when compared to Crossfire 2.

Subjectively speaking, I liked the X-Fire enough to buy one after demoing it some months ago (but I'll wait to replace my current wing, as I don't want to do it right at the end of the season). But you need to get used to how it flies, as it is closer to high performance wings than similar canopies on its range. I've heard a couple of people saying it was the best working canopy they've ever tried, fun, quick, but with reliable openings. But I can't really compare it with a Crossfire 3, I haven't jumped one.

In contrast to the above poster, I didn't feel the fronts particularly light. Quite the opposite. But my WL was significantly lower (1.5ish), and I demoed the canopy on shitty risers, which might negatively influence that perception.

[bibliwho 1]

Deimian

... and I demoed the canopy on shitty risers, which might negatively influence that perception.

Can you clarify what you mean by shitty risers, Deimian?

This is the first time I've come across good vs. bad risers (as opposed to simply old or worn-out).

[Deimian 43]

bibliwho

*** ... and I demoed the canopy on shitty risers, which might negatively influence that perception.

Can you clarify what you mean by shitty risers, Deimian?

This is the first time I've come across good vs. bad risers (as opposed to simply old or worn-out).

Oh, well, it is simply that the diving loops were made of a single layer of type 17 webbing and lower on the risers than the diving loops I am used to. I use louie loops, which sit a bit higher on the risers and have an extra layer of tubular webbing inside. These two things makes them easier/more comfortable to pull. Calling the other risers "shitty" was just me being picky.

[rrmtopo 1]

Here's some more information. ~1200 jumps, all FS, about a third 4-way and the other third experienced 16-40 ways. Aero Engineer by trade so I can make reasonable observations but no instrumented data. 1.7 wingloading. A lot on Pilots then the last 200 on Zulu so for what I do I like a little flatter trimmed canopy. I'm not a swooper, but one of these canopies made me fall in love with flying the parachute again.
~10 jumps on Crossfire3
~25 jumps on x-fire

The Crossfire3 is trimmed a LOT steeper than x-fire. Suspended under, it has a similar planform of the Zulu (leading and trailing edge taper) which from pictures looks a lot like the Crossfire 2. As mentioned before, super snively, takes a while to open but it is soft. Good harness input, light front risers, responsive rears, loooooong flair like a pilot to shut it down. Liked how it flew performance wise, but it was really ground hungry. Large DZ, spent half the time on rears to make it back into the pattern.

xfire.....I went into this demo exercise already with my mind made up on the Crossfire 3 based on what I read (some of it their marketing). I jumped the xfire just to be thorough, certainly didn't intend to like it so fucking much. Suspended beneath it has a schumann-like planform (tapered leading edge with an almost straight tail) and the openings were interesting. Fairly quick at first, not hard, just positive. Then a soft finish. Lose maybe a third less altitude on opening from the Crossfire 3.
Also good harness input, a little heavier on the fronts but it's trimmed a little flatter so thats expected. Lighter than a Pilot but not as light as the Crossfire 3. For busy large dropzones where 90s are the rule in the pattern, a nice smooth front 90 to landing generated good energy. Initial flair stroke as compared to the Crossfire 3 is about half, but that bottom end even in no wind is amazing.

One of my buddies in the know tells me to wait for PD's next midrange offering, but I don't want to give the xfire demo back just yet. I like that canopy.

[Jaysus 1]

I haven't tried the X-Fire, but I own a Crossfire3 119 ( wingload around 1.75 ) since this season and put a bit more than 300 jumps on it.
Previously I was flying a Safire2 139.
Coming from this background, I really like the canopy, it does respond very well on all kind of inputs.
I didn't have any problems on coming back from long spots.
Openings as already mentioned, long, snively, soft and mostly on heading.

90s and 270s are real fun to dial in with this canopy, allthough it would be nice to have a bit longer recovery arc.
Personally, I am most impressed by the flare power it gives me. No matter if I do a straight in, or a 270, if it is headwind/crosswind/downwind, I have always enough flare power to shut it down properly.
On downwinds sometimes you have to run it out / slide it out, but on no wind or with some headwind it will mostly kill the whole forward speed on the end of the flare and you get a very nice and soft landing.