Anyone actually measured a Safire?

[Jimbo 0]

We've heard an awful lot of talk lately about the size differences between the Safire and other canopies of the same advertised size. My question, has anyone actually measured a Safire to see what the difference really is?
Experienced riggers? I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Just curious.
-
Jim

[Geoff 0]

The 'official' position from Icarus is that Safires and Omegas are 7% smaller than other Icarus and PD canopies of the same placarded size. As told to me by Simon Mundell.
Geoff

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

The 'official' position from Icarus is that Safires and Omegas are 7% smaller than other Icarus and PD canopies of the same placarded size. As told to me by Simon Mundell.

Huh. So if my 189 were a PD canopy, it would really be a 175? And instead of loading it at 1.29, I'm really loading it at 1.4?
At least as far as the rest of the industry is concerned.
Interesting...
-
Jim

[apoil 0]

Javelin, taking this into consideration recommends the OJ size container for PD mains up to 135 and the safire 139.
However, when I ordered a Safire 139, they gave me a J1 container presumably because experience showed that the Safire 139 is too tight in a container designed for a sabre 135.
Either that or they fucked up.

[SBS 0]

That would be the opposite of what the other guy said about sizes. I'm not clear on what differences there are exactly, but they come, from what I know, from the differences in methods of measuring. As far as my info, some companies measure the top surface inflated, and some companies measure the bottom surface deflated, or something like that. I think I'll call tomorrow and ask....I'm curious now, which company does what.
I'll report back if I find anything.
Steve

[riggerrob 558]

During the 2001 PIA Symposium, Icarus announced that they were changing their canopy measuring method. Prior to 2001, Icarus measured canopies according to the old PIA method.
At the start of 2001, Icarus changed to measuring canopies using Performance Designs' method.
PIA's method was standardized long before elliptically tapered canopies came on the market, so it is very difficult to measure tapered canopies using the old PIA method.
I am still waiting for a simple explanation of P.D.'s measuring method.
Now it seems that we are reverting to the confusion that reigned during the early 1980s when every canopy manufacturer used its own measuring method.
I am so confused!

[Geoff 0]

Quote

So if my 189 were a PD canopy, it would really be a 175? And instead of loading it at 1.29, I'm really loading it at 1.4?

Exactly. and Icarus told me that a Crossfire 119 would be the same size as my Safire 129.

[cobaltdan 0]

all of the major manufacturers use computer progams to generate our models and patterns.
it is easy to calculate the exact area of the canopy: ie. click the icon.
some canopies have false square footages labeled, i believe for sales reasons.
ie. a tempo 120 is actually more like a 100. people buy them because the pack volume is so small and they are cheaper. well this is because they are smaller than you think. if they were labeled as a 100 many people would probably not buy them.
a docile elliptical canopy can be far more efficient that the equavilent skill level square, thus requiring a smaller canopy/ slightly higher loading. because of the fact that many jumpers, novices especially are uneducated it is a hard sell to put them on a proper size of high efficiency canopy for them, if it is smaller than the old technology square they learned on. this fact i believe influences some manufacturers to mis label the square footage on their canopies.
atair opted not to do this. all atair canopies are labeled exact. instead of labeling a 160 a 170 we try to educate on the differences of canopy models, loading and efficiencies....etc..
sincerely,
dan
atair

[riggerrob 558]

cobaltdan,
I challenge you to explain - in lawmans' terms - how to measure a cobalt canopy and come up with the same numbers as the factory.
Secondly, I disagree with your claims that Tempo reserves are smaller than the numbers advertised by PISA. When I worked at Rigging Innovations, we measured dozens of canopies according to the PIA method. Only PISA and Para-Flite canopies matched advertised numbers, all other manufacturers had some sort of discrepancy.
We have been comparing apples and oranges since 1980, and I am really tired of this silly process!

[cobaltdan 0]

frustrating, isn't it...
thats why we had a custom autolisp routine written for our cad program.
the calculation is done automatically in our modeling program.
as far as the tempo, stane measured it at 100, the strong stellar 120 was 110 and the pd 113 was about 113 (kudos)...
sincerely,
dan
ps. btw the cobalts aren't to difficult to measure as they have 3 straight middle cells and a linear taper on the 3 outboard cells.

[riggerrob 558]

Funny, stane must be using Performance Designs' measuring method, because when Rigging Innovations measured a Tempo using PIA methods, it came out to more like 125 square feet.
In the future I challenge all manufacturers to specify which measuring methods they used when they publish canopy data.
And if I hear any more volume numbers based on the weight of "one fat Sherman," I am going to hurl!

[cobaltdan 0]

hi riggerrob,
which measurement method do you prefer.
perhaps the easiest standardized method is simply the flat cord-wise area.
sincerely,
dan
atair

[riggerrob 558]

I preferr the old PIA measuring method which involves measuring span along the leading ege and measuring chord from tail straight to the top leading edge.

[cobaltdan 0]

chord should be measured from the ribs tail to the point furthest away on the rib.
this point is not necessarily at the top skin leading edge. most high performance canopies have the
top skin curved over, past the chord slightly (splitting hairs)...
sincerely,
dan