36 cell onyx

[Treejumps 0]

Not really meant to be harsh, just my opinion as noted. I fly at at a pretty decent level and feel that I understand the aerodynamics and physics involved. As such I make informed opinions based on these practical and theoretical understandings. I am a rigger as well so I do put a lot of thought into my opinions on equipment. I was excited at the idea of a 36 cell canopy, even from Atair. The product per the company's own design claim just does not have 36 cells. Too bad, 36 cells may be the next step, although there have been no even number cell canopies that have ever amounted to anything.

I fly a VX and like it a lot. It has a noticeably flatter and faster glide path than V-lows or FX's. I documented this on a big way HP flocking/CRW jump where I had trouble staying down and back with the group of mostly 21 cell canopies. So if a true 36 cell canopy comes out and is better, I would like to have one. We all wait together.

Note: Freezone, your understanding of the function of the cross brace is off. Read up on them and the angle of them will make more sense. Better yet, build a 2' x 2' box out of 1" x 6" plank. Try to stand it up with no cross brace across the back and see what happens. Supports very little weight. The best cross angle (brace) for max support will be 45 degrees across the corners. Less angle will support less total weight. Hope this example helps make sense.

Tree

[skygod7777 0]

i can see were you coming from on the 36 cell thing, i hadn't really looked that close at it. it is different looking now that i actually look at it, like it's really not a quad cell on the bottom, but it is one the top or something. weird.

but before you make some big impressions that it won't perform as well as your vx you need to jump one. i also jump a vx, and i still am interested in jumping one to see if it is better than anything else out right now like dan claims.

just my $.02

oh ya, fill in your profile the rest of the way

later

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=131990;search_string=quad%20cell;#131990

This is from April.

Hook

[PhreeZone 15]

Where are you applying compression at on a canopy? Unless you have someone standing on your canopy all the forces should be suspended.

The way I understand it, the most efficient angle for a crossbrace should be the angle of the weight transfer from the line attchment point to the top skin with out any bracing present. Normally ribs (specifically load bearing ribs) take the majority of the stress and from there transfer across the top skin the forces until they run into forces acting in the oppsite direction. Non load bearing ribs take the rest of the weight transfer since they are where two forces from the top skin meet, the bottom skin recieves only enouigh force to keep skin tension. You can apply and alter additional forces by the addition of design considerations such as braces or airlocks. Braces apply the forces directly along the angle of the brace, you don't need it to be the strongest possible angle, just the angle that transfers the forces to points on the canopy that it proves to be most benificial.

If your able to adjust the location of the weight transfer to the middle of the cell instead of the non weight bearign rib you are able to make a cleaner airfoil by altering skin tension in smaller incriments. Look at the amount of wrinkles on the top skin of a Raven in flight, then look at a Saber, an FX has less and since the skin is even better controlled on a VX it has less distortions thne even an FX. Even an Airlock canopy has a tightly controled area that has only tiny wrinkles(right across the airlocks) and the rest of the canopy has the normal distortion.

A 33 cell would be the next logical move from Icarus. 11 cell planforms were tried and used with some success in the past. With the higher aspect ratio of the Onyx over a VX there are bound to be some major design differences.

The BASE community has done some really cool projects such as cameras in canopies with streamers and markers used to show the wind flow patterns and the application directions of load forces that different canopy design changes have on a canopy.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[JJohnson 0]

Well you got me curious Tree. I'm not scrapping with you but enlighten me.
Another odd design?? Which of Atair's other chutes would you consider odd? The Cobalt and Comp Cobalt are matches for any canopy in their classes. I don't find anything odd or a few years behind on either of them. What are you comparing them against? What features are years behind or odd?
So long as we are not talking cross braced, I'd choose a Cobalt or a Samurai over any other canopy out there right now. I compared against Safire, CF1, Stilletto etc demoed whatever I could lay my hands on......what was considered to be the main chutes. I liked the Cobalt.
What are you considering state of the art? Xaos? Velocity? VX? Vengenance? They have all been out on the market a few years, based on ideas that have been rehashed and tweaked. If the Onyx is different from what is being sold right now, I would not say if qualifies as behind nor odd.
I'd be interested in what you base this on. I'm currently scraping cash together for another second rig, and was seriously considering cross braced. I was waiting for the Onxy or Big Air's newest one, based on what I saw and liked from their 9 cell, ellipticals. So educate me and save me from what I'm missing. Seriously. You took a devil's advocate position here...and boldly I might add. Instead of going with the crowd here, you made a statement. I have valued all the info I have ever gotten from these forums, so please....
JJ

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[sdctlc 0]

The point made is along the lines of my first impression, nothing to do with the quality of the Cobalt line or the company but more the construction of the canopy.
I pulled up pictures of the Cobalt and the now accepted "traditional" Tri cell design using the Xaos-27 pics as a comparison. It seems to me that the canopy though having 36 cell when looking at the view from the top, is in acctuality a 9 cell with more internal support. Looking closely at the pictures and thinking in terms of the canopy as a 9-cell design, each half of an individual cell has approx 1/3 segrated with a support or cross brace. This seems to result in making the topskin smoother. Therotically this should improve the airflow and in turn increase lift. My opinion is that it is not a 36 cell in the sense of what is/has been recently considered the multicell or "tri" cell design, meaning a cell with a decernable rib and in some cases an associated cross brace.
That said just because it may not jive with the above referenced current notion of a multicell canopy in "tri cell" construction lets not bash right off the bat and say its not in line with what we think it should be. If the innovation of the smother topskin creates an improvement in performance call it what you want (supported 9-cell, quad cell, whatever) and enjoy the performance improvement. My first thought was thats not a 36 cell canopy, but after thinking about it, even though it might not be, it looks like they are trying to think "out of the box". Gotta love innovation, good and bad!
The discussion should be less the semantics describing the construction but more towards the gains if any in the design performance. If it turns out to work and is better regarding a performance improvement, every body will tri to follow the design in some fashion and all of the swoop loving jumpers will shell out a ton of money to have the canopy. If not it will fade away like previous innovative designes, couple of examples of this are the AR-11 and the Evolution.

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[cobaltdan 0]

as per a previous thread '# of cells' as pertains to a cross braced canopies is being defined as the number of divisions formed on the top skin between line attachment points. i.e. fx/velocity = 3*7= 21 , vx 3*9=28, onyx 4*9=36. aerodynamically reducing spanwise distortion on the bottom skin translates into no improvement of efficiency. so according to our design philosophy why then add the extra vertical ribs to create a quad cell or for that matter even a tri cell with reguards to the bottom skin. no reason except increasing pack volume.... additionally your logic with reguards to the cross braced angle is incorrect. this is a tension structure. maximum force is transfered through a rib to the line when it is vertical. as a rib is slanted it progressively carries less and less tension. result on the onyx is an aifoil which is significantly lower in distortion than the vx, but with a 1/3 lower pack volume. additionaly the nose remains fully rounded in high speed flight and does not blunt or dimple in as does every other canopy ever designed. this further adds to the wings efficiency.

'odd design' thank you i will take that as a compliment. 'couple of years behind state the art'. curious as to why you think that? while everyone else was creating cross bracing canopies based on the stilletto. we were busy perfecting the 9 cell before releasing a cross brace based in it. the cobalt is the only 9 cell canopy that is competitive against what i guess you are calling state of the art. a comp cobalt ranked 2nd out of a field of 160 cross braced canopies after a full year of pro competition in distance and speed. we have 13 patents pending, and have set more records in the last two years than i can count, and were competitively chosen over all other parachute companies to develop the next best ram airs for the us military. i think we are doing a good job of being 10 years ahead.

sincerely,

dan<><>

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[cobaltdan 0]

high aspect ratio: we have built prototype canopies up to 3.4. and are playing with a design at 5.0 (military not swooping). but we are finding that a higher aspect ratio canopy will give you higher efficiency at slower speeds but not at higher speeds.

imo the ultimate swoop machine meaning longest swoop will probably have to remain a canopy below approximately 3.0 ar. and simply be very fast. increasing speed over ar will make more difference.

sincerely,

dan<><>

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[maretus 0]

Quote

vx 3*9=28

Yo, Dan, you guys at Atair really use some strange math if you get 28 out of 3*9. I get 27. :)

http://www.ufufreefly.com

[cobaltdan 0]

woops, too funny,

dan<><>

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[cobaltdan 0]

kirk, the cross brace seams are i beams not roll seams. the over all design induces a cumulative error less than a tri-cell design. and as explained the cross braces transfer more force the closer to vertical they are.

sincerely,

dan<><>

Daniel Preston <><>
atairaerodynamics.com (sport)
atairaerospace.com (military)

[Treejumps 0]

Odd: two stage deployment (every canopy deploys in stages), dump in track recomendation, sniveling base canopies, bringing out canopy designs years after they have been in widespread use and calling it "new designs, calling a 9 cell a 36 cell, even number cells. I do consider Ataira bit odd for these things. If you like them because of it, I mean no harm as this is just my opinion. As far as industry trailing. As I saw it Atair brought the cobalt out after the X-braced canopies had been out for a couple of years. From what I've seen the cobalt is a good canopy for a stilleto knockoff (they look and open and swoop just like stilletos). Lets remember for all the extra speed that cross brace canopies deliver, a maxed out stilleto pilot can still hold his own (well, sort of). If you like the cobalts, great. I think that the majority of the HP pilots out there don't fly them and don't hold a very high opinion of them. It doesn't mean that a pro that dials it in can't do well on them, just that the limiting factor is likely the canopy instead of the pilot.

Now I must go swoop,

Tree

[brits17 0]

Quote

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 [;]

hehe, ramon... levin and i told you that you had that toggle backwards remember? *sigh* if you would only listen sometimes...

_______________________
aerialkinetics.com

[ramon 0]

Look, you little stinker..
Damn coincidence, if you ask me..

Your just messing with me cause I had to chop my VX today

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Hey, Ramon, my brother. You said "stinker."

As for the comparison of Stiletto vs. Cobalt being "the same", the poster is totally confused. I can tell you that as a person who jumped Stilettos for six years prior to stepping up to far better performing mains. There are a total of zero competitive swoopers jumping Stilettos in competitions other than the PSN.

chuck

[IMGR2 0]

This is for not only Tree but the whole group as well. Working closely with Eric Butts and Atair Aerodynamics I have had the opportunity to be flying Cobalts and CC's for over three years. Over those three years I have also owned or flown VX's, Velocities,and Xaos canopies. Before the Cobalt and the cross-braced canopies hit the market I flew Stilletos. For anyone to compare is ridiculous. My canopy of choice is a CC 85 and here recently I was trying on a friend of mine"s new Javelin container(checking the fit) which has a Stilleto 97. After three jumps it was easy to realize that the Cobalt is not a "knock-off". The Stilleto does not have the lift or the structural integrity to finish out a swoop with my wing loading. Mind you I am no engineer(I leave that job to Dan)
though I do have many high-performance landings under my belt, some not so graceful and some that I didn't walk away from on my own two feet. This is not a badge of honor I care to wear it just makes me much more aware of what is good and bad during a HP landing.

Over the past two weeks I have had the opportunity to fly the Onyx 95, this airfoil is absolutely unbelievable. Of course it IS a prototype and it has some small fixes to be down which are already in process. My max loading with weights was at about 2.1. The lift produced by this canopy seemed to be almost too much. Had some fun with it at altitude and tried to bowtie it and could not do it. I'm sure its possible but I have fairly short arms. As long as I kept everything even it would just stay flying. Also tried to spin it up and it was quite hard to induce line twist, when it finally did the canopy came out quite calmly without going into a violent spin.
I am posting a clearer pic for anyone who is interested.

My .02

WannabeOnyxPilot

Bryan

[sdctlc 0]

The canopy still seems to not be a 36 cell canopy in the terms of the Tri-cell design. Who Cares! What I mean is that the terminology used to describe it is not important if the canopy performs better than what currently is out. If it does do this, people will buy it! The design seems to be a 9-cell design that has a better "internal support" system. Looking at the new picture a little closer, the "small cells" seem to make up about 25% of the total of each cell, if the canopy is looked at in terms of a 9-cell canopy. Best guess is that they act more as an internal support for the top of the canopy. Aerodynamically if you have a more efficient wing you are going to get more lift. That I would venture to guess is what the internal supports are designed to do. Get better efficiency by making the low pressure zone of the wing (fast air flow portion) smoother to prevent or postpone, until slower speeds, smooth airflow separation. This should translate to more lift at slower speeds which will add to swooping distance. That distance is then based on the initial speed generated in the approach turn. Carrying more speed into the swoop and generating more lift at slower speeds should give a longer swoop unless the canopy has a design that is more drag generating.

Lets see how the testing goes and get more feedback after more than 3 people who have flown it! If it is better its better if not and/or there is a problem it will go away!

Scott C

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[Kirils 1]

Hmmm...I might have to give your thoughts some credibility. I remember the PR stunt pulled with the Space and Alpha. Same canopy different loadings.
New name. The Colbalt has a lot live up to and I think it's falling short. I have 4 jumps on a friends Cobalt, I liked the thing but it really was not that innovative in technology. Not much different than the Alpha. BUT don't all the manfacturers pump up their products? Look at the hype over the PD Sabre II...
Is it really as good as they say? No way....

"Slow down! You are too young
to be moving that fast!"

Old Man Crawfish

[PhreeZone 15]

The Space/Alpha thing was pulled by Gunther at Winchester Technologies and as far as I know Atair had nothing to due with it. My understanding is that that is what promted Dan to found Atair USA to distribute all of Atairs products to the US.

What would it take to be truely inovative nowdays? A canopy that can fly backwards or forwards would be inovative, but 11 cell canopies are old, crossbraces are way old, airlocks are old, everything lately has been a refinement of what has worked recently.

And how is the Sabre2 not leading up to PD's hype?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

A canopy that can fly backwards or forwards would be innovative

No, it would be pretty darn close to the holy grail. 180? No problem, just fly backward.

There's been some good theoretical designs, but no one has had the wherewithal to actually try building one yet.

Get one of those built, and I'll worship you. Plus, you'll save a lot of lives.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhino 0]

That is one nice looking canopy.....

[skyboyblue 0]

speaking of innovating, I was looking thru some old video tapes and found a program from the discovery channel a few years back, about history of parachutes. good show. anywho, I don't remember who, but someone was testiong a parachute that flew like a paraglider(ie could go back up)but packed like a parachute and could be opened up at terminal.

sbb

[DutchSkyCam 0]

I'm not an expert, but too many people are just guessing around... Please don't draw conclusions until you have read the whole message.

a 7 cell has 8 line groups (you know what I mean)
a 9 cell has 10 line groups (a 21 cel has line groups (8)
a 27 cell has line groups (10)
The Onyx has 10 line groups (which makes it a 9 cell)...

The way cells are counted (nowadays) has nothing to to with the amount of (classic) cells...
It has to do with the way the fabric of the topskin (and indirectly the bottomskin) is/are controlled and the way the cells are locked in place (braced - as explained on the icarus website)...

In normal (conventional) parachutes cells are devided in two, a non-loadbearing rib in the middle to support the structure.
In an X-braced parachute (FX, VX, Velocity) cells are devided in three sections, off which the outer two are X-braced. This is to reduce bulge distortion, to keep the upper surface flatter. Since the cell is devided in three and the bottom surface is supported by the non-loadbearing ribs (that the X-braces connect to), the bottom surface will be flatter as well.
In the Onyx the cells are divided in two sections, the bracing braces from the line attachment point to halfway the top skin of the section.
Since it doesn't brace directly to a non-loadbearing rib, it does not affect the bottom-skin as good a the others. (I can even emagine you get a lot of strange forces through your canopy)

Sumary...
Theoretical comparrison, the way I understand it.

Topskin bracing:
Top skin of an FX looks like a 21 cell parachute (7x3)
Top skin of a VX looks like a 27 cell parachute (9x3)
Top skin of a Onyx looks like a 36 cell parachute (9x4)

Bottomskin bracing:
On the FX, VX and Velocity the bottom skin is (indirectly) braced by the non-loadbearing rib the X-Brace connects to.
Since the X-Brace on the Onyx does not directly connect to a non-loadbearing rib, the bottom skin (see photos on message 1) is (less effectively) braced by the non-loadbearing ribs...
Bottom skin of an FX looks like a 21 cell parachute.
Bottom skin of an VX looks like a 27 cell parachute.
Bottom skin of an Onyx looks less than an 18 an cell parachute.

Bracing (interlocking):
With bracing -in this aspect- I mean the abillity to keep the parachute in shape, even in turbulence...
Hard to compare the bracing capabilities... (I'm not an expert)
Since the braces are load bearing, i would say: 'Depends on wingload(vertical pull) and the forces trying to pull the canopy out of shape (horizontal pull) and the angle of the bracing'...

Wanted:
I have 500+ jumps on an FX 104 @ 2.1 loading... The top skin tore near the bridal-attachment... one of the X-braces came off... need a reline... ($$$)
I Need a new parachute... (I think I know what I want $$$$$)
Can I test the Onyx??? (before I buy something else?)

Barry...

[IMGR2 0]

This information you have come up with is quite helpful. I would be very interested where you gathered it from.

[In the Onyx the cells are divided in two sections, the bracing braces from the line attachment point to halfway the top skin of the section.
Since it doesn't brace directly to a non-loadbearing rib, it does not affect the bottom-skin as good a the others. (I can even emagine you get a lot of strange forces through your canopy)]

I can only assume this is your opinion seeing as though you have never seen an Onyx fly with your own eyes.
It seems to me that your post is quite bias towards the Icarus canopies with no supporting data.
I believe canopies are like cars. They all get you to where you want to go. Some people like fords, chevys and toyotas.

This IS a new design, when they come out to the public take it for a test drive then make your assumptions. One thing I can guarantee is the pack volume. Can't give you exact numbers but the VX 79 and the Onyx 95 packed up in my Voodoo VOO just about the same.

Do not take this as a flame of sorts, just don't like to see people post negatively about something they have never seen or used.

Bryan

[Treejumps 0]

Relax,

The way I read his post it sounded like he was interested in flying an Onyx. I would fly one too I just have serious reservations about it. I think that Atair benefits from a lack of expectations. If it happens to be the next great thing I would want one. As it stands I am convinced that I am flying the best designed swooping machine available and happy about it. However, bring out something that goes faster and further and I'm all about it.

Cya.