Turbo-Z

[marcwgarber 0]

My Turbo-Z 165 that I bought new in 1994 flies every bit as well as a Sabre2 manufactured in 2018.

Similar opening characteristics (the Turbo-Z may open a bit more briskly).

Similar glide path (the Turbo-Z might actually be slightly better at getting you back from a long spot).

The Turbo-Z seems to be a bit faster. Hard to judge, very subjective, and I have no measurement device. I would love to jump side by side with someone with identical wingloading to compare.

Similar flare and landing capabilities. VERY similar. Most of my jumps are on Viper 105's which are very similar to Stiletto 107's, except the flare point was noticeably lower on the Vipers. Same landing results, but different toggle input needed for landing for Viper 105 vs Stiletto 107. I can discern differences. Turbo-Z 165 and Sabre2 170 - very similar.

Point being, what the hell? Was the Turbo-Z (which is zero-p topskin and F-111 otherwise) ahead of it's time? My almost quarter of a century old Turbo-Z flies and lands just as well as a 2018 Sabre2.

I'm not knocking PD. I like PD. But dang, I think my Turbo-Z that is a quarter of a century old is just as good as a brand new Sabre2.

Unfortunately most of you folks won't be able to offer an informed opinion, but a few will. Wendy Faulkner?

A ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.

[Bob_Church 7]

"I'm not knocking PD. I like PD. But dang, I think my Turbo-Z that is a quarter of a century old is just as good as a brand new Sabre2.

Unfortunately most of you folks won't be able to offer an informed opinion, but a few will. Wendy Faulkner? "

I had a Robo-Z, actually I still do, it's in a box in the garage and I've used it for a few water jumps, then went to an all purple Turbo-Z. It was a great canopy and helped me get my goal of Gold Wings before 2000 by being so easy to pack.There were many days when I made every load at TAS. These were both 180s and when I decided I wanted a larger canopy I gave the Turbo to a friend who is still jumping it. It's his only canopy and he gets stand ups on target every time. I miss Paraflite. I sometimes suspect that my Hornet is a retconned Cruiselite, which was the canopy I've enjoyed the most.
Boy, I really do miss those easy pack jobs.

[skow 6]

I had similar observations related to multiple new models like Safire3, Kraken, Sabre2 (not that new :) ) , WinX when I was testing demo canopies.

There were some small differences, but none of them was actually better at anything than my Sabre 1 from 1995 which I got for case of beer.

Especially Safire3 and Kraken were big disappointments (super weak flare). Also Kraken and WinX had very short recover arcs (much shorten then both Sabre's). Sabre2 is good all-round canopy but the openings are way to long and like to search quite much every now and then.

So yea, I second that. In all-round-canopy category no real progress has been made for past quarter of century.

Interesting however to see progress in semi-cross-braced canopies and Shuemann-planform models, both cross-braced and non-cross-braced like X-fire (I've heard Sabre 3 will also be shuemann-planform, but of course much more docile than VK, Leia etc)

[rmarshall234 13]

>Unfortunately most of you folks won't be able to offer an informed opinion, but a few will.

I have quite a few jumps on a Turbo Z 165 loaded at 1:1 and still have it. It was / is a good canopy and fun to fly. It's been awhile since I've jumped it but the one thing that sticks out in my mind is how quick the toggles turns were. And it seems like the lines were long - in comparison. It always felt like these two characteristics would make it easy to self-induce a malfunction by being too aggressive with the toggles. Am I remembering this correctly? Mine is still in great shape and if I ever start jumping again I will put it back into service.

[Unstable 8]

Man I have a Turbo-Z in my basement donated (Abandoned) from a rigging customer of mine... reading this thread makes me want to take it up and see what it is all about.

=========Shaun ==========

[gowlerk 1,903]

I've got one as well. A 185. I'm a little afraid to try it because the slider is tiny.

[mathrick 2]

marcwgarber

My Turbo-Z 165 that I bought new in 1994 flies every bit as well as a Sabre2 manufactured in 2018.

That "brand new" Sabre2 is a design that's been around since 2000 or 2001. Just because it was manufactured in 2018 doesn't make it a new canopy.

"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

[mathrick 2]

skow

I had similar observations related to multiple new models like Safire3, Kraken, Sabre2 (not that new :) ) , WinX when I was testing demo canopies.

There were some small differences, but none of them was actually better at anything than my Sabre 1 from 1995 which I got for case of beer.

Especially Safire3 and Kraken were big disappointments (super weak flare). Also Kraken and WinX had very short recover arcs (much shorten then both Sabre's). Sabre2 is good all-round canopy but the openings are way to long and like to search quite much every now and then.

So yea, I second that. In all-round-canopy category no real progress has been made for past quarter of century.

I feel you're missing the point of half of these. WinX and Kraken are WS-specific canopies. They're made to open quickly, on heading, and pack small, whilst still giving the good longevity of a ZP/hybrid design, the performance of a modern wing, and being good enough all-rounders that you can take them on a non-WS jump without worrying about getting slammed. I dunno about Kraken (haven't jumped one), but WinX also excels at glide ratio and if it's at all possible to make it back from a long spot, WinX will get you there. You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc.

"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

[skow 6]

mathrick

***I had similar observations related to multiple new models like Safire3, Kraken, Sabre2 (not that new :) ) , WinX when I was testing demo canopies.

There were some small differences, but none of them was actually better at anything than my Sabre 1 from 1995 which I got for case of beer.

Especially Safire3 and Kraken were big disappointments (super weak flare). Also Kraken and WinX had very short recover arcs (much shorten then both Sabre's). Sabre2 is good all-round canopy but the openings are way to long and like to search quite much every now and then.

So yea, I second that. In all-round-canopy category no real progress has been made for past quarter of century.

I feel you're missing the point of half of these. WinX and Kraken are WS-specific canopies. They're made to open quickly, on heading, and pack small, whilst still giving the good longevity of a ZP/hybrid design, the performance of a modern wing, and being good enough all-rounders that you can take them on a non-WS jump without worrying about getting slammed. I dunno about Kraken (haven't jumped one), but WinX also excels at glide ratio and if it's at all possible to make it back from a long spot, WinX will get you there. You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc.

I think you might be missing my point as well
None of the WS specific canopies open better, more on-heading or quicker than the sabre1.
Only benefit is pack volume - WinX packs a bit smaller, Kraken packs slightly smaller than WinX - however the fabric seems so thin that I wouldn't expect much longetivity from it.

As for flying under the canopy - Kraken was super boring, with very hard risers.
Sabre2 opens super slow and likes to search for direction and open in turn etc. Otherwise performanceis pretty much the same as Sabre 1
Safire3 also opens quite slow without any performance edge over Sabre 1.

None of above outperform the original Sabre in flying characteristics making them more fun to fly. And if they do, the difference is embarrassingly small if you keep in mind 20+ years of development (as a good comparison take wingsuits from 20 years back and current ones)

mathrick

But WinX also excels at glide ratio

WinX has still much steeper angle of flight than the Sabre1

mathrick

(...) You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc.

Yes, you can and such canopies are on the market e.g. Mamba (although not w WS specific)

[mathrick 2]

skow

***I feel you're missing the point of half of these. WinX and Kraken are WS-specific canopies. They're made to open quickly, on heading, and pack small, whilst still giving the good longevity of a ZP/hybrid design, the performance of a modern wing, and being good enough all-rounders that you can take them on a non-WS jump without worrying about getting slammed. I dunno about Kraken (haven't jumped one), but WinX also excels at glide ratio and if it's at all possible to make it back from a long spot, WinX will get you there. You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc.

I think you might be missing my point as well
None of the WS specific canopies open better, more on-heading or quicker than the sabre1.
Only benefit is pack volume - WinX packs a bit smaller, Kraken packs slightly smaller than WinX - however the fabric seems so thin that I wouldn't expect much longetivity from it.


I have not flown the Kraken, but I assume it's like the Horizon, ie. Optimum (low-bulk fabric and everything), just with a ZP leading edge and centre cell?

Quote

As for flying under the canopy - Kraken was super boring, with very hard risers.
Sabre2 opens super slow and likes to search for direction and open in turn etc. Otherwise performanceis pretty much the same as Sabre 1
Safire3 also opens quite slow without any performance edge over Sabre 1.

None of above outperform the original Sabre in flying characteristics making them more fun to fly. And if they do, the difference is embarrassingly small if you keep in mind 20+ years of development (as a good comparison take wingsuits from 20 years back and current ones)

That's not a fair comparison though. Canopies 20 years ago were already 20 years into serious development and had almost 10 years of close to universal adoption. A fair comparison would be to today's wingsuits with what's being introduced to the market in 2038. While I'm sure there's going to be a significant progress, I also bet the difference between ATC1 and ATC10 is gonna be far smaller than the difference between ATC1 and BirdMan Classic. And you're not very likely to see another ATC introduced, ie. a design class that easily matches or outclasses almost all older designs whilst also being significantly easier to fly.

Wingsuits today seem to have reached the maturity that canopies did when Sabre1 was around and Sabre2 was upcoming -- the basics are all there, essentially all newly-introduced designs are basically competent and have no obvious very weak points (especially now that PF finally got its shit together and managed to make Rafale not suck). We'll surely see a lot of progress going forward and several break-throughs, but they will be increasingly more specialised and achieved at the cost of departing further from the "excellent all-rounder" point current mid-size designs represent.

Quote

mathrick

But WinX also excels at glide ratio

WinX has still much steeper angle of flight than the Sabre1

I find this claim incompatible with your other one that Sabre1 has almost identical performance as Sabre2, as Sabre2 flies far steeper than WinX (I don't have enough Sabre1 experience to compare it to Sabre2 myself).

FWIW, I find WinX to be pretty zippy for what a flat-gliding canopy it is.

Quote

mathrick

(...) You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc.

Yes, you can and such canopies are on the market e.g. Mamba (although not w WS specific)

Yes, and Mamba makes a terrible WS canopy. There's just a fundamental tradeoff between performance and safety. If you want to have long diving turns, you're also going to have them when it spins up on you, and that's not something you want to invite in a wingsuit.

There's no such thing as a do-everything skydive, and there's no such thing as a do-everything canopy. The claim to fame for WinX (which, btw, I think is the best, most universal WS canopy on the market today. It's got all the longevity of full ZP with very close to a midrange 9-cell performance, with all the reliability of a 7-cell reserve-derived design, yet without compromising on anything that would rule it out for non-WS jumps. Horizon flies both steeper and mushier than WinX, so I'd only ever get it if you must pack two sizes up in your container, but then you can also get an ULPV WinX. Non-Pro Epicene only makes sense if you need to be sponsored by Squirrel) is not that it's amazingly better than older all-rounder designs in any one aspect, it's that it's as good or a bit better while also packing smaller and having fantastically reliable openings that still won't smack you around and fuck up your vertebrae like a Sabre1 on a bad day.

"Skydivers are highly emotional people. They get all excited about their magical black box full of mysterious life saving forces."

[skow 6]

mathrick

A fair comparison would be to today's wingsuits with what's being introduced to the market in 2038. While I'm sure there's going to be a significant progress, I also bet the difference between ATC1 and ATC10 is gonna be far smaller than the difference between ATC1 and BirdMan Classic.

Wingsuits today seem to have reached the maturity that canopies did when Sabre1 was around and Sabre2 was upcoming -- the basics are all there, essentially all newly-introduced designs are basically competent and have no obvious very weak points (especially now that PF finally got its shit together and managed to make Rafale not suck). We'll surely see a lot of progress going forward and several break-throughs, but they will be increasingly more specialised and achieved at the cost of departing further from the "excellent all-rounder" point current mid-size designs represent.

Good point. Agree

mathrick

Wingsuits today seem to have reached the maturity that canopies did when Sabre1 was around and Sabre2 was upcoming -- the basics are all there, essentially all newly-introduced designs are basically competent and have no obvious very weak points

Definitely agree and that was my point.

However I feel quite disappointed becasue I'm not really sure if that's the current attitude of manufacturers i.e. "We seem to get as far as we will, so let's stop trying and now keep polishing the 'turd' " or that we have actually reached the very boundaries of aerodynamic performance that can be achieved by a airfoil which also needs to fit in the skydiving container and open from (sub)terminal velocity. (or also wingsuits - however with different constrains)