cobaltdan 0 #1 December 19, 2002 36 cells of perfection. Atair Skunkwork Pictures Attached <><>Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eames 0 #2 December 19, 2002 So is this a landable canopy? Are you ready to market it or is it still in prototype stages? How does it open, fly, land? Does the cross-bracing only go back to the C lines? Which are you going to sell, the 7 or 9 cell planform? Cost? Demos? Have you done datalogging, and if so, does this canopy perform appreciably better than other HP canopies (and I don't mean the Cobalt)? Riser pressure, front, back? In other words, would you care to elaborate? Jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #3 December 19, 2002 Quote 36 cells of perfection. Now I'm becoming more interested.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #4 December 19, 2002 Looks like a 9 cell platform by the lines (5 A's per side). I'll call it an 18 cell platform if it makes anyone feel better. Does anyone else find that funny? Sabre, stiletto, crossfire, safire....have always been nine cells with the undertanding there are 2 cells per cell.... and diablo, triathalon, spectre, omega etc have always been just 7 cells. But an FX is a 21 cell (7 cell) and a VX is a 27 cell (same for hte percision canopies). More means better right? hehe whatever. looks interesting. If there are 4 cells per cell.....seems like the pack vol (exp with X brace) would be pretty big. Looks squatty though (lower aspect ratio) might just be the lense. Z Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #5 December 19, 2002 my question is what will be the recomended wing loading, pack volume?? will it be sold in stock sizes, or any size you want?? and the rest of what eames said too. oh ya, looks cool too. later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #6 December 19, 2002 It must be noted that the canopy in the photo is a 95 and is being jumped by Eric Butts, over 260 out the door (you do the math). He lands it to a complete stop without taking a step. I get it next. I plan on wearing whatever lead it takes to try wingloads from 1.8 to 2.3. The Onyx is a nine-cell planform. This canopy is the second prototype. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cobaltdan 0 #7 December 19, 2002 eric's exit weight is currently 285. he is loading 3:1 and as chuck pointed out the canopy shuts down to a complete stop, straight in, 0 wind, no slides or steps. chuck is next on the list of propilots and will be putting the onyx through its paces next week. official introduction will be at the pia symposium. i am going to keep some data under raps until then. but so far it is proving to be the most efficient skydiving wing ever seen by a wide margin. aspect ratio is 2.85 pack volume is surprisingly small. the 36 quad cell design uses no more vertical ribs than a 9 cell. only additional pack volume is from the small crossbraces on a,b&c. as opposed to a tricell that uses 50% more vertical ribs than a 9 cell and uses crossbraces on a,b,c &d. the 95 onyx packs only a hair firmer in the same bag/container as a standard 9 cell 95 ! canopies will be available in set sizes next season. sincerely, dan<><> www.extremefly.com ps. thanks to quade the original posted pictures are now clearer (deinterlaced)...Daniel Preston <><> atairaerodynamics.com (sport) atairaerospace.com (military) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #8 December 19, 2002 Quote official introduction will be at the pia symposium i will be at PIA, and will you have any demos of it there?? if so i would like to jump it. it looks pretty cool and the pack volume not being very big is really cool, i like that fact a lot. i have another question, does it dive like the other x-braced canopies?? thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #9 December 19, 2002 Didn't pack up as big as expected. Was a pretty canopy. Where did those risers come from , Eric was in a hurry and I packed it for him and a toggle came loose and wrapped around the other riser when the slider hit it ..oops Eric pulled down the offending riser ...flew straight and untangled my mess. sorry Butz.... moral is..I guess it opens well behaved...ramon "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1freak 0 #10 December 19, 2002 Now this get's the blood pumpin.... HAVE FUN... ...JUST DONT DIE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #11 December 19, 2002 Ok, you're never packing for me... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #12 December 19, 2002 Ramon, I tried to call Eric all day yesterday and didn't get any answer. Tell that monkey lip to give me a call ASAP. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdctlc 0 #13 December 19, 2002 The design looks very interesting. The cross braces are more vertical than the crossbraces on say the Xaos line. Also it looks like all of the leading edge is open so lots of air can get into the canopy which is different then the current thinking on the Cross-braced line out now? Does the top of the cross brace being attached directly to the top skin and not to the next rib increase the in flight structural stability of the canopy? Looking at the pictures of the quad cell design, two of the cells are very small compared to the other two. Looks like the 2 smaller dimensioned cells are less in volume than a single one of the two other cells.. Is this a "brother" of the pDF Ninga canopy? Any way, Looks great and I am sure a very cool color pattern can be generated. If you can shut it down loaded at 3:1 that is Awesome! Hope we keep getting postings from the guys flying it...Scott C. "He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roq 0 #14 December 19, 2002 I can see in pic that the Onix construction is similar to Ninja (PDF) but the Onyx is very more tapered than it and have only 3 x panels for rib instead 4 of the Ninja. Ninja seems more the square canopy although has an AR of 2, 92 The onix seems simple and clean of additional fabric. Good job! roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unutsch 0 #15 December 19, 2002 just another toy i'll lucidly dream about Check out the site of the Fallen Angels FreeflY Organisation: http://www.padliangeli.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #16 December 20, 2002 Hey Dan, What is going to be the raccomended wing loading to get performance advantages over a 9 cell like the comp cobalt? I would say over 2.0 but I really don't have any clues. ThanksMemento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #17 December 20, 2002 An interesting design but it seems a big stretch to call this canopy a 36 cell. The bottom skin is divided into 2 sections per cell like a stilleto or cobalt. The top skin is divided into 4 sections per cell, but there are only ribs at the same location as a cobalt. 9 cells with 9 ribs still adds up to.... a 9 cell elliptical. The primary function of the extra seems on the top skin seem to be be to have a convenient location to attach the cross braces which are significantly less angled than all other cross braces currently made. As the angle is reduced (closer to verticel) it seems logical that the strength the cross brace provides would have to reduce. Why not just have lots of vertical ribs? Becasue they would not add strength.The many small panel on top obviously contribute to the leading edge being smooth and clean quite similar to a VX. My opinion: Another odd design from a company that seems to consistantly be a couple years behind in the state of the art. Good luck with it. Tree Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #18 December 20, 2002 Hey, why don't you just tell us how you REALLy feel about it? "It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JGarcia 0 #19 December 20, 2002 Quote My opinion: Another odd design from a company that seems to consistantly be a couple years behind in the state of the art. Good luck with it. Damn, that's a harsh opinion. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as calling it another odd design, it's just a different way to skin the proverbial cat: increasing performance/efficiency/consistency of your wing. --JairoLow Profile, snag free helmet mount for your Sony X3000 action cam! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #20 December 20, 2002 Pretty harsh indeed. JJJJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1freak 0 #21 December 20, 2002 Just landing that thing the way they are (straight in, and to a complete stop) at the loadings they are shows that it's not a behind the times canopy.... I am interested.HAVE FUN... ...JUST DONT DIE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #22 December 20, 2002 I hope that what they claim is true, and if it is it will be the next big thing and take over the market. However.... I"ll belive it when I see it. I"ve never heard a canopy manufac. be realistic about the performance of their canopy. Hell, read the ad. for the Falcon and you will think it would out fly a stiletto. 3:1 to a stop in no wind, and no sliding.... Sabre class canopies can't do that at 1.3:1. If it's true it will be great, but seems pretty out there. Z Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1freak 0 #23 December 20, 2002 LOL... Okay, you got me on that one.... I did have a friend with a "Dipped" falcon, not that was a good one.... HAVE FUN... ...JUST DONT DIE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #24 December 21, 2002 Well I would not go nearly as far as Treejumps did, but in reality he seems accurate. Changing the angles on the tribrace only weakens it's ablity to brace the top and bottom skins from moving. Also all of the extra seams ad in some margins for tolerance build up ( even presision cutting and sewing has it's ± tolerance). It really just seems like a bad spin on the standard tri brace setup. But hey that is just my .02 cents Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #25 December 21, 2002 Look at the original patent on the Tri cell canopy. (Hint its about 15-20 years before Icarus was founded) They used a very similiar design to this in that patent. Crossbraces as I understand them don't "brace" anything, they allow the canopy to maintain closer tolerances to its deisgned envelope while in flight by assisting the canopy to maintain its shape. They also minimize the amount of topskin distortion and allow for a cleaner airfoil. Squeeze a inflated Crossbraced canopy anywhere other then a rib and they are just as easy to collapse as a non crossbraced canopy. But thats just my limited take on things.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
