LOW time jumpers on HIGH time wings..7 vs 9 Cells

[rhino 0]

Also posted in 7 vs 9 cell forum,,
We all know that the Triathlon/Diablo vs Extreme class canopy aren't even in the same league as far as canopy performance. That is why you don't see anyone with a Diablo 46 over his head.. Because a Diablo 46 probably wouldn't fly very well? Extreme FX and VX canopies are without a doubt the best made for swooping. I don't believe it would be possible for a Diablo loaded at 2.0 to even think about flying in the same airspace as an Extreme loaded at 2.0. The 7 cell canopies are made with different performance characteristics in mind. 9 cell ellipticals are made for one or so things.. To impress all of us with their speed!! They are fast and very entertaining in the hands of a good pilot. That is exactly what it takes to fly one of those canopies highly loaded "A PILOT"! I think beginners "Low time canopy pilots with little time wrenching their canopies in and out of its flight envelope at both low speed and high speed" Have no business under an Extreme loaded at 2.0.. I've seen too many skydivers that downsized to fast for their skill level fly right into the ground, making the good swoopers look bad, driving potential skydivers away from the sport. On the other hand the Triathlon and Diablo are more forgiving in their low speed flight characteristics. You can STOP a Diablo or a Tri on a dime, if you stab the brakes on an Extreme my guess is you are going to go ballistic! OR back into the air. UP UP AND AWAY!! Maybe the issue here is canopy progression? Not what out performs what? For a low time canopy pilot a seven cell Tri or Diablo will probably keep you alive longer. Of my last 200 jumps at least one out of five was a hop and pop at altitude 13,000 ft+. I have ALL standup landings. The reason I do this is simple, I want to know EVERY aspect of the flight envelope of my canopy. Front risers, rear risers, weight shift in the harness, stalls, and recoveries. A couple of years ago I asked Charlie Mullins what it took to make a good canopy pilot? Since then I play around up high not down low.. I weigh 155 lbs, putting my first 150 jumps on a Triathlon 150 gave me a wing loading of 1.25. I learned EVERYTHING that my canopy could do. Which wasn’t a whole lot at 1.25. But I KNOW what it can do and I can pull myself out of anything with that thing. I demo’d a Diablo 120 as well as an Extreme FX114, I KNEW the Extreme for the moment was out of my league and I was not loading it enough to take advantage of what it is made for. The Diablo120 still had the low speed characteristics that I was comfortable with. And I could speed it up as fast as I was comfortable going. My point is this again, nothing can touch an Extreme with a good pilot… But until you are a good canopy pilot starting with a more solid, forgiving, yet high performance 7 cell like the Tri or Daiblo is a SAFE thing to do that could keep you in the sport longer. Safe being a relative term to your common sense. Blue Skies! I hope this helps someone.. Rhino
Edited by rhino on 6/7/01 10:52 AM.

[Grogs 0]

Quote

I think beginners "Low time canopy pilots with little time wrenching their canopies in and out of its flight envelope at both low speed and high speed" Have no business under an Extreme loaded at 2.0..

I agree with you completely here. I doubt you'd find many sane people who would disagree. Personally, I believe jumpers should stay around 1:1 on their first canopy off student status, but your milage may vary.

Quote

But until you are a good canopy pilot starting with a more solid, forgiving, yet high performance 7 cell like the Tri or Daiblo is a SAFE thing to do that could keep you in the sport longer. Safe being a relative term to your common sense.

I think these make good canopies for a beginner, but I really don't agree with the way it's presented. You compare the flight characteristics of the Tri/Diablo to that of the Extreme-VX/FX as if there's nothing in between, when in fact there are dozens of steps between these 2 choices. There are 7 and 9-cell F-111 PD canopies, lightly elliptical 7-cells like the Omega or the Spectre, and there are 'square' conservative ZP 9-cell canopies like the Hornet that make good low-timer canopies. The Tri is probably a *bit* more conservative than these choices, but they're still (my opinion) safe enough for a first canopy.

[rhino 0]

No, in fact I said there is LITTLE to NO comparison in the flight envelope of the TRI/Diablo vs. Extreme. Earlier discussions hinged on 7 vs. 9 cells. FOR A BEGINNER, the stability and forgiveness of a 7 cell CANNOT be touched by any 9 cell on the market. PERIOD. It's impossible. When I say 7 cells I mean, Tri, Diablo, Spectre, PD, Omega, among others. I am not a TRI/DIABLO fanatic. A good SAFE progression IF one was a TRI/Diablo fanatic would be to start with the Triathlon, Progress into the Diablo, and then move into the Extreme/Velocity/Crossfire/Stiletto 9+ cell category.. NOT IN COMPARISON TO EXTREME CANOPIES, Seven cells are safer and have a WIDER performance envelope ESPECIALLY for a low to mid range canopy pilot. And ESPECIALLY in bumpy, windy, turbulent conditions. Until you become a swooper/carver "ready to jump an extreme, crossfire, or velocity class canopy" Seven cell canopies like the Tri, Diablo, Spectre CANNOT be compared in flight envelopes. 7 cells save lives.. PERIOD. I've seen a Sabre FOLD and drop a skydiver 20 feet out of the air because she flew through rotors behind a hangar. I've seen a Triathlon take the same line and barely budge as far as rigidity in the air. It is a solid wing, more solid than any 9 cell in its class of canopy. Watch a Sabre come down in bumpy air, it looks like an accordion.. Watch any well built 7 Cell canopy like the Tri or Diablo, you WILL see a difference.
Rhino

[rhino 0]

I corrected the line.. The edit didn't stick.. Note sentence one.. Rhino.. My bust,,,

[skybytch 259]

Quote

The Tri is probably a *bit* more conservative than these choices, but they're still (my opinion) safe enough for a first canopy.

I recommend and sell Tris and Spectres to novices all the time. I wouldn't recommend a Diablo to someone just off student status, even at 1.0:1, because it is a higher performance canopy than either the Tri or the Spectre. As most of you already know I preach conservative canopy selection and sizing for a first main; I want these new jumpers to stay uninjured and in the sport. Yes, there are some people with 20 jumps who are capable of flying and landing a Diablo or other higher performance canopy at 1.2, but they are NOT the majority. The majority of new jumpers won't be staying current enough to handle that kind of wingloading and they don't have the experience to handle that speed in all conditions.
imho if you aren't jumping your ass off - 10 + jumps per weekend every weekend - and you haven't flown elliptical mains (like Stilettos) loaded at 1.5 or above for 300 + jumps you have no business under an Extreme/Velocity/etc loaded at 2.0+. Not just because you're taking more risk with your body (that's your decision, not mine); more because I really don't want to be sharing the air and landing area with someone who doesn't have the experience to handle that canopy in all conditions - that's taking risks with MY body and I'm really not into pain.
pull and flare,
lisa

[rhino 0]

ROCK ON LISA!!! Good points.... When my SON starts skydiving, his first canopy will be a Triathlon "class" 7 cell. Anything else would be UNACCEPTABLE for my loved one..
Rhino

[alan 1]

I would just like to offer some thoughts/comments about these statements. First though, I agree with the conservative approach that is intended.
"When I say 7 cells I mean, Tri, Diablo, Spectre, PD, Omega, among others."
I think it is a mistake to put the Diablo in the same class as the other canopies mentioned. It turns much faster and has a much higher rate of descent. Simply, it belongs in with high performance canopies. Perhaps at the lower end of the spectrum, but definitely hp.
"FOR A BEGINNER, the stability and forgiveness of a 7 cell CANNOT be touched by any 9 cell on the market. PERIOD. It's impossible."
Actually, the newer 9 cells are just as good or better. 9 cells generally _maintain_ pressurization better than 7 cells, while 7 cells inflate/re-inflate quicker. 7 cells actually respond quicker to toggle input, but fortunately dive less. The real advantages of the 7 cell for a beginner are the slower speed and steeper glide. The advantage of slower speed is pretty obvious, but the trade-off is less pressurization and stability. The advantage of the steeper glide is it makes it easier to estimate where they will land. A less obvious advantage is it should encourage/force them to stay on the ground in windy/turbulent conditions. A subtle advantage of most 9 cells is that they are more likely to get back after a poor spot and landing off can be more hazardous for a beginner.
"Seven cells are safer and have a WIDER performance envelope ESPECIALLY for a low to mid range canopy pilot."
Actually, most 9 cells have the _wider_ performance envelope. The 7 cells is just lower at the bottom end. They can fly a little slower and a little steeper. But again, that is a trade-off as noted above.
"And ESPECIALLY in bumpy, windy, turbulent conditions."
I disagree here. Pressurization is our friend and 9 cells as a rule ( I agree there are exceptions) have a higher internal pressure and maintain it better. You don't see a pilot landing in turbulent, windy conditions slowing down and putting flaps out. Speed is also your fiend here. I'm not talking VX type speed here, but the normal full flight speed that keeps the canopy above a stall. I think this is a myth from the old days of 7 cells. Bringing them in steep and pumping the brakes. They were being landed like a round and not a ram air. Sure with the 7 cell you can keep it inflated/re-inflated and mushing along on the verge of collapse with deep and or pumping brakes, but the 9 cell is more like to fly through the turbulence and not be on the verge of, or stalling at landing. Pumping the brakes on landing approach is a bad habit to learn as it greatly reduces the efficiency of any airfoil. I put my 17 year old daughter under a conservative 9 cell for her training and her first canopy was also a conservative 9 cell ( not a Sabre!). With all of that said, I also think a Triathlon is one of the best canopies for a first canopy and often recommend them. I think the new breed of 7 cells has closed the gap in performance and therefore closed the gap in the relative merrits of the advantages and disadvantages.
Keep up the safe, conservative approach to canopies. It is good to see.
alan

[rhino 0]

Respectfully, I must disagree. 7 cells maintain pressurization better than 9 cells by design at lower wing loadings. The cells are deeper and hold more air. More pressurization is an effect of more air in the cells. The airfoil creates more lift hence DECREASING the glide angle. INCREASING flair capability and the ability to make it back after a bad spot. When you flare a 7 cell you are pulling down more surface area of the canopy than when you flare a 9 cell, hence the stopping capability. I make it back from spots all the time that my 9 cell counterparts cannot make it back from under my Triathlon?
In response to:
"but the 9 cell is more like to fly through the turbulence and not be on the verge of, or stalling at landing."
As I stated earlier this is completely incorrect. UNLESS you are loading a high performance wing with lots of air speed. 7 cells "9 times out of 10" are more likely to fly through turbulence unaffected than 9 cells in the same class canopy. You can SEE it with your own eyes on a windy or bumpy day.
No one ever mentioned pumping the brakes on landing? Again, I've seen 9 cell canopies "of various types" get EXTREMELY unstable in bumpy air. Even drop a skydiver 20 feet to the ground in rotors. I have yet to see that happen on a 7 cell canopy?
In response to:
"Actually, most 9 cells have the _wider_ performance envelope. The 7 cells is just lower at the bottom end."
7 cells having a lower bottom end as well as the top end makes my point of a wider performance envelope. You made my point for me.
Blue Skies! Stay safe...
Rhino
http://www.aerodyneusa.com/2thisisques2.html
http://www.aerodyneusa.com/qhowdoiselpr.html

[ramon 0]

7 cells are not "more pressurized" because they are deeper and hold more air. That is a fallacy (ideal gas law PV=nRT). Pressurisation comes from air pressure at the inlet of the nose wich directly correlates to airspeed.
Airspeed is directly correlated to loading and angle of attack (everything else being equal).
In my opinion the reason a seven cell is stable in turbulence (when lightly loaded 1.1 or lower) is that the cells are very large (large opening) and the aspect ratio is lower, so that if buffeting depressurises a cell it is easily reinflated before a stall or a spin. I have seen very lightly loaded 9 cells spin up (135 pound girl under a monarch 150). I have also flown my 7 cell tri (1.28) in buffety winds and felt safe. A nine cell has more flare power because, aspect ratio is higher, so you have a longer lifting surface at the tail being deflected. Also a more aerodynamic nine cell will move faster and speed increases lift more than linearly (square of speed or exponential..forgot)
I felt safe under my 9 cell eliptical (1.5) under semi windy conditions, but not as safe as I did under a nine cell samurai at 1.8 (yeah...no fair..airlocks) and much safer than newbies jumping sabre 190s. Thing is I don't really want to fly a seven cell at 1.5, 1.3 is fun, safe, stable.
More heavily loaded nine cells (1.9- up) stay extremely presurised and require great skill to keep land softly, that skill may be challenged when landing in buffety winds, but I have seen it done by good pilots with no after effects.
Just think of what size F111 seven cell reserves some hot shots have above their postage stamp mains. I'd love to wath someone land a F-111 reserve at 1.8..ha ha.
But then I might be wrong.

[rhino 0]

In response to:
"A nine cell has more flare power because, aspect ratio is higher, so you have a longer lifting surface at the tail being deflected. Also a more aerodynamic nine cell will move faster and speed increases lift more than linearly (square of speed or exponential..forgot)"
Again, when we talk about Flare power we have to be specific. Flare as in SWOOP distance or flare as in STOPPING power. Also, I'm not arguing that a highly loaded 9 cell is highly compressed, we all know it is. What I will argue is that a seven cell canopy HAS MORE STOPPING POWER THAN A 9 CELL, PERIOD... And once more, respectfully, I will make a correction. A seven-cell canopy STOPS faster than a 9 cell. Stops being FLARES. Keep in mind we are referencing low to mid jumpers with low to mid wing loadings on a seven cell vs. a nine cell canopy. Yes in a sense you are right about pressurization relating to the inlet size, it also relates to the design of the inlet and how the inlet releases the air back out of the nose. Now with Air locks we are talking about a different story, we are talking about the air being forced to stay in the cells regardless or the turbulent conditions maintaining a rigid wing creating more lift and surf. Flare power is a relative term and must be considered as such. It is relative to wing loading, speed, experience level, canopy type, and what the situation requires. This is where PERFORMANCE ENVELOPE comes into play. Both HIGH and LOW speed flight characteristics. Comparing wing loadings of 1 to 1:8 is hardly realistic in what a canopy will do in rough wind. At 1:1 or less the canopy practically flies the jumper, at 1:8+ make no mistake about it, the jumper flies the canopy. Arguments can be made as to what is the safest. I would rather have more control than less control of all aspects of flight while under canopy. As I do not swoop I enjoy responsiveness. Now, some people are just plane slow and would do ALL of us more harm than good under a high wing loading. They belong on larger docile canopies that can forgive you if you slide in on your butt or reach for the ground on a windy day with a toggle still in their hand.
I have yet to fly Diablo or Tri over 1.65 but when I do I'll be happy to fill you in.
Blue Skies!! And Smooth Rides!!!
Rhino

[ramon 0]

"Flare as in SWOOP distance or flare as in STOPPING power."
Flare as in "lift" if we were not talking apples to apples.
Yes I would much rather be on a 7 cell than a 9 at 1.0 loading in buffety winds for reason stated in my previous post. If I were doing a demo I would use a triathlon.
I agree a seven cell will stop on a dime. Some of them can be flown straight down (Parafoil) in brakes.
My friends base canopy (Fox 265) will in fact fly a little bit backwards. It lands like shit though ( of course a burning foot or muddy knee is much better than missing your mark in a tight area)..
I used to 90 hook my triathlon (175) at about 125'. You're right it would stop very quickly after the surf started ... and I loved it...but it did not seem to have over all performance like my stilleto 170 (1.3). that is a big ass stilletto at a lower wing loading that I did not like to fly in buffety winds for reasons stated in my first post (high aspect ratio elipticals lighlty loaded..nasty)..that canopy however could land as slow as a tri or out surf a sabre 170 and stop on a dime (feather soft landing) and make it back from a spot from Hell...I of course think this is rare performance received from flying such a big FAT stilleto (flat glide ratio). My Space/Alpha will out swoop the crap out of that stilleto, but no where near the range (slow...fast). But my space is pretty damn stable in turbulence and always has penetration.
bloo skies

[riggerrob 558]

Come on folks! You are comparing apples with oranges: medium loaded 7 cells with 9 cells loaded twice as heavy!
As for the 9 cell advocates claiming better all-around performance: bull ....
Elliptically tapered, heavily loaded 9 cells sacrifice everything else in their quest for longer turf surfs. Icarus Extremely Extremes are the best in one corner of the envelope and dangerous in the other three corners.
I dare any Icarus Extremely Extreme pilot to stall his heavily loaded canopy straight down onto a 3 cm disc!

[rhino 0]

BAM!!! And RiggerRob hits a homer!!
Rhino

[alan 1]

OK, time for me to jump back in here. I am not comparing apples to oranges. When I refer to a 7 cell or a 9 cell, I intend that to be the only difference. I am assuming the same wing loading/same size canopy. Both are either square or elliptical. No difference. I'm not saying that the square stops faster, but has a wider performance envelope. Let's look at just one parameter to see what I mean. 9 cell stall speed (at a given wing loading, lets say it is 5 mhp. The comparable stall on the 7 cell might be 3 mph. Now compare forwrd speed in full flight. The 9 cell might be 25 mph. The 7 cells would be more like 20 mph. The envelope for the nice cell would be 25 to 5 with a range of 20. The envelope for the 7 cell would be 20 to 3 with a range of 17. I think the same is true of wing loading. Both the 7 and 9 cell canopies can be flown at very similar wing loading at the lower end of .7 or so, but the 9 cell because of the increased lift provided by the higher aspect ratio, can be safely flown and landed at a higher wing loading. These of course are hypothetical numbers, but I think they reflect what I was trying to say. That same 9 cell won't come down as steep as the 7 cell, but it will outglide it and again have more range in this aspect of performance because the its advantage at the longer glide is more than what it gives up on the steep approach. We may be able to cite examples of personal experience that seem to contradict this, but remeber pilot skill plays a role there as much as canopy performance. I have gotten back from bad spots on my 89 VX at 2.4 when others on the load flying Spectres and Tri's at wing loadings in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 didn't. I've even flown in formation next to a Manta loaded at about 1. Now that's apples to oranges! :-)
Ramon is correct in his assesment of the stability and pressurization issue. A 9 cell at a given wing loading will be more stable than its 7 cell counter part.
This is not to imply that a 9 cell is a better choice for a first canopy. As I stated previously, there is a trade off with speed. The 9 cell will have more forward speed and that will always magnify the injury at impact. I'm just saying that sometimes the wider performance envelope can help avoid the potential for injury. I'm pretty sure here in the U.S. that the 9 cell Manta is the standard for student canopies. That doesn't mean that the 7 cell counterparts are unsafe by any means. Just that the 9 cell Manta offers some advantages.
Here are a few quotes from a paper that you may find informative. I have used this docuement as a reference for my comments. If you would like to read the whole thing, e-mail me and I will forward it as an attachment. It used to be found here in Dropzone.com, but I think it was lost when Sangiro went to the new format.

The Aerodynamics and Piloting of High
Performance Ram-Air Parachutes
Draft 0.2
Jerry Sobieski
May 19, 1994
The author would like to thank the follow individuals and organizations for their cooperation and assistance in preparing this document. David Parsons, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Austrailia. Henry R. Diaz, Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland. Eric Johnson, University of Florida. Rags. Clint Vincent, Executive Director (Acting), United State Parachute As-
sociation. University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies.
A special thanks to John LeBlanc at Performance Designs.
"Due to various complex principles beyond the scope of this document, the lift generated by the wing is directly related to the Aspect Ratio. In other words, given two wings of equal surface area with similar airfoil crossections, the wing with the higher AR will, in general, produce the most lift. This is why gliders and small aircraft with relatively low airspeeds will normally
have very high aspect ratio wings."
Now we must define some terms relating to motion of the airfoil (be it a ram-air parachute or airplane wing) as it moves through the air. While airplanes and parachutes move through an essentially stationary air mass, it is generally easier to study airfoil ight dynamics as if the airfoil
was stationary and the air was moving past it. This is the situation found in wind tunnels. Also, since the direction and speed of the air flow changes as it passes around the airfoil, we would like to define the air flow velocity to
be the direction and speed of the air far away from the wing i.e. where the presence of the wing has had no affect on it. We could say: the wind velocity at a distance infinitely far away. This value is refered to as the freestream velocity and is denoted as V 1 . Jumpers will recognize V 1 as the speed and direction of the \relative wind"."
"In the skydiving world, stalls are normally associated with poor landing procedures where, in an attempt to
maintain lift the jumper ares deeper. This results in momentary lift, but slows the canopy due to the increased drag | which decreases the lift and a vicious cycle results."
"To summarize, this means that as long as the external airstream continues to ow over the canopy surface, the interior cell pressure will remain larger than the exterior surface pressure, and the cells will remain inflated. Since
the internal cell pressure is a function of the dynamic pressure due to V 1 , the faster a canopy moves through the air, the greater the internal cell pressure and the more rigid it becomes. Rigidity is our friend. A rigid wing is far less susceptible to turbulence or spurious collapse.
Do not lose sight of the fact that for cell pressurization to occur properly, the forward stagnation point must remain directly over the cell mouth. If
the angle of attack changes, and the stagnation point migrates to either the upper or lower surface, the airstream will ow across the cell mouth, reducing
the pressure there, effectively sucking air out of the cell. Result: cell collapse. (This is sometimes refered to as the \Venturi effect.") Most (all) modern sport ram-air canopies have crossports cut into the ribs in order to reduce the risk of cell collapse and to improve reinflation characteristics. Crossports simply allow the pressurized air from more central cells to bleed over into adjacent cells. Another interesting implication here is that cell pressurization is not dependent upon the size of the cell mouth. During inflation, a large mouth will allow the cells to inflate faster. But once inflated, a smaller mouth will [at least theoretically] provide all the pressure necessary for the canopy to retain it's shape - without a reduction in cell presurization."
"Another important implication of the dynamic pressure is that it is is a function of V2. This is good. It means a small increase in airspeed will result in a significant increase in cell pressure. This implies that even a small reduction in drag - which results in a higher airspeed - will increase the rigidity of the canopy."
I apologize for the lengthy quotes, but they provide accurate and valuable information and that is my intent here. To have open discussion that results in better understanding. Bottom line is there are some myths about the performance of 7 cell canopies. I will repeat though, the advancements in technology have closed the gap in performance with the new 7 cells like the Triathlon.
Well, I'll move on now and let you guys debate this. IF anyone is intersted in the paper, e-mail me, or better yet, ask Sangiro to put it up here in Dropzone.com again.
alan

[freeflyguy 0]

rhino, I gotta say. You crack me up. Physics are kind of indisputable laws. But whatever. I have been top docked by a vx74 loaded at close to 3. I load at 1.5. That doesn't say a lot, except a high Perf canopy has a lot more range than you are giving it credit for.
Carry on.

[ramon 0]

Looks more like a double play to me.
That's double plays as in two outs (not double to second base), just so were apples to apples.
bloo skies
jump high, pull low, surf long
ramon

[rhino 0]

The discussion was not about range.. Take that same guy on the VX74 and see if he can avoid a student that accidentally flies in front of him at low altitudes. HE'S DEAD!!! We are talking performance envelope on a 9 vs 7 cell canopy for low to mid time jumpers. 1.5 or 3.0 wing loadings aren't in the same category. And I've outflown distance wise MANY A NINE CELL with compairable wing loadings on my Triathlon when it comes to glide path. I noticed the Diablo was even better. You will always get outflown by the Extreme canopies on the end of speed as that is what they are made for. Just because you were docked by a VX74 loaded at 3 and you are loaded at 1.5 means nothing as far as performance envelope. What is your point? If you are flying a high performance canopy at 1.5 the speed isn't ALL THAT different in normal flight. But he'll leave you in his rotors when he lets it go. I PROMISE YOU he was at the edge of his low speed flight envelope slowing to your 1.5 wing loading. I never questioned the RANGE of a high performance canopy. As we were not compairing the 2. In the hands of a good pilot the corner of it's flight envelope can be SLIGHTLY expanded. But again we are talking apples to oranges. Everyone seems to be missing the point here. As with any canopy especially high performance canopies you reach a point of diminishing return where the air speed increase starts to mean an exponential loss in altitude as well. DUGH... Speed wise can my Triathlon loaded at 1.25 keep up with some canopies that are loaded higher? NO. BUT, the majority of the time, when it counts, even though me on my lower wing loading "sometimes" flies a tad slower I almost ALWAYS get more distance and penetration from my 7 cell. The only exception being in EXTREMELY high wind days when I drop down a little faster due to slightly less forward speed and the higher loaded canopies make more headway. I am not disputing physics. I am disputing wether or not some of you people have flown a 7 cell loaded the same as the canopies you are jumping now and ACTUALLY compaired the difference. I have, and I am TELLING you what I experienced under canopy. AGAIN, AN VX-EXTREME CANNOT BE COMPAIRED TO A TRIATHLON. Blue Skies, smooth rides.. Rhino

[rhino 0]

I don't care what book you are getting your physics from.. Load a Sabre at 1.2 then load a Triathlon at 1.2. If you still tell me that the 9 cell sabre is more stable in bumpy air I'LL CALL BULLSHIT ON THAT ONE ANY DAY. And so will and canopy pilot that has flown the 2 at equal lower end wing loadings... Let's agree to disagree. Blus Skies, Rhino

[ramon 0]

I have flown a triathlon and a stilleto at the same wing loadings 1.3.
I agree the triathlon was less jumpy in turbulence as I have said before.
The stilletto (only at that low wing loading to my experience), had a much greater range as I said before, could drop on a dime or could swoop 70 feet with a carving front riser turn. A stilleto 170 is a pretty big canopy and it acts that way, but it can develop some impresive speed for it's size.
My Space Alpha at 1.5 does not have a speed range that I can compare to the triathlon it is faster and much faster..
off landings have to be planned quickly.
I have always maintained in my discussion that a large triathlon was less likely to have an end cell colapse 40 ' above the ground.
I have also maintained that a similarly loaded 'modern' 9 cell has more range.
bloo skies
R

[FallRate 0]

Just to muddy the waters...
The Extreme FX is a cross-braced SEVEN cell canopy.
FallRate

[freeflyguy 0]

Muddy waters. heh heh. That is funny. But the fx is kinda 7 cell, but more 21. But you knew that.

[ramon 0]

.....ahem.....
aspect ratio
nuff said

[rhino 0]

You said aspect ratio. Cool...
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!