RichM 0 #1 April 21, 2003 I recently had the opportunity to jump a XFire-2 129 loaded at 1.35. I normally jump a XFire-1 119 at 1.47 (I have about 250 jumps on the XF1 119). I found the XF2 to be slightly slower in forward speed, almost certainly due to the increase in size and reduction in loading. I unexpectedly found the XF2 to be sluggish on the front risers - it reacted much slower than my XF1 but I think it loaded up the front risers about the same - albeit with the XF2 having a slower increase in speed I was able to hold a f-riser 360 from full drive whereas on my XF1 I can only hold a f-riser 270. It also didn't react any faster to harness input - i.e. it hardly reacted at all. For landing I tried a gentle 90 starting high, double fronted to bring it down but when I let up the double fronts it immediately came out of the mild dive leaving me 8-10 ft to fly down at normal drive before planing out. It did not climb or surge due to the inital excess speed from the dive. A friend of mine also normally jumping a XF1 119 loaded at 1.73 tried this XF2 129 (at 1.6) and had a similar experience - it was less exciting than either of us expected it to be. We both elected to not jump it again but thanked the lender. The concept that some canopies fly big seems to hold for both of these canopies. I would liken my XF1 119 to a 135, but the XF2 129 felt more like a 170. I have the option of jumping a XF2 119 demo and I hope to take this up soon. The same place also has a XF2 99 which I would load at 1.8. I am now inclined to demo that too - I wasn't before this experience. I would aim to buy a 109 or thereabouts as a next canopy - not that I can afford anything at the moment - and my swooping skills aren't yet ready to be downsized, I know I can wring much more out of my current canopy. But I like demoing different kit for the experience. Does anyone else have any observations on this?Rich M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #2 April 22, 2003 Rich, I own a crossfire2 119(loaded about 1.9). When I bought it, they loaned me a crossfire1 119 which I paid the demo fee for but they let me keep it for much longer than normal, basically until mine came in. I have a pretty good handle on the differences. The first thing I noticed was that the openings on the 2 were nothing like the 1. They were not as soft and not as stable. The next thing I noticed was that the recovery arc is not as long as the older model. The riser pressure on the crossfire 2 seemed to be less than that of the one. Although, 1 that I had had the line trim adjusted after the safety bulettin. I have heard that the adjustment causes a large increase in riser pressure. With the lower riser pressure I can keep it in the dive longer to adjust for the shorter recovery arc. Also, I can gradually let the risers up making for a more efficeint exit from the turn. People have asked me to compare the crossfire2 to other canopies. The best description I can give is to say that it is a cross between a crossfire1 and a stiletto. I should also mention that I have jumped it in bumpy conditions without any problems. Also, in light of the past problems with the old crossfire, I opened high and did everything in my power to make that thing collapse like the old one was suspected of doing. Nothing phased it. I like it and if you need a new canopy I would definately recomend this one. It will be a bit of a change from the crossfire1 but I didn't mind it. I think they should have come up with a different name though. It really is a different canopy and the name doesn't do a good job of indicating that. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #3 April 22, 2003 QuoteThe first thing I noticed was that the openings on the 2 were nothing like the 1. They were not as soft and not as stable. The next thing I noticed was that the recovery arc is not as long as the older model. Weird... My crossfire2-97 opens better than the xfire1 that I had. It was a 104. Now jumping a 97xf2. And the recovery arc is CONSIDERABLY longer than the 1. Putting on almost 10 pounds this winter I am now loading it near 2.0. The two canopies are no where near the same in my opinion? The xf2 turns much faster and dives longer. weird.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #4 April 22, 2003 I have flown a Crosfire 2 130 loaded at 1.85 to 1 for over 100 jumps. I recently bought a Crossfire 1 129 for my B rig. With a 1 sq foot diffenence I feel, I can give a fairlyaccurate comparison. First the Crossfire 2 has alot snappier turns, it also is alot more sensitive to hip input. The Crossfire 2 also dives alot more on toggleturn than the 1. The area where the differances is really noticable is with the front risers, first of all the Crossfire 2 has noticably less riser pressure and about 125 feet more of a recovery arch. I have not yet dialed in ther Crossfire 1 (do to the lower recovery arch) but it does feel faster across the ground however the swoops are not nearly as long as the Crossfire 2. Oh, it also may be worth mentioning that both of them have great opennings and both were made in Europe. Blue Skies Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #5 April 22, 2003 Well it appears that opinions vary. Mine was one of the first off the assembly line so maybe the trim is different. Also, the loading can drastically effect the way a canopy flies. Although, Rich and I have very similar loadings. I agree with Rich on the lower riser pressure and snappier turns both with risers and toggles. I also agree with him on the longer swoops. The only place we differ is in the recovery arc. It may also be worth mentioning that the demo I had was made in the US and was very jumped out. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycat 0 #6 April 22, 2003 My experience is the same as Talon's I have a crossfire1 104 and jumped a crossfire2 108, both at about 1.2. Also both were made in europe. Now my crossfire1 116 which was made here in the US, that one was a different beast. Pull a front riser down and watch the nose fold under, obviously it was one of the severely affected ones. Fly it like you stole it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #7 April 22, 2003 I jumped a XF-1 99 for about a year loaded about 1.8-1.9. Then got a XF2-89 loaded about 2.1 during the TSR attempts. The 1 had much softer openings, higher front riser pressure and more stability albeit lower loaded. The openings on the 2 were much less predictable and much quicker although not hard were firm. I could do pullups on the 1 after a 180 hook,the 2 had very light front riser pressure and could be maintained after a hook. The twitchyness probably had more to do with the loading but I felt I was over loading it. Hope that helps. Conway 1245 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjuggler 0 #8 April 23, 2003 I spoke to a rigger who works for Icarus recently, and he gave me an explanation which was completely plausable, but should come from him. I don't think he uses these forums but I will see him soon and try to get a more creditable explanation. The XF2 is very close to the speed of a cross brace. From what I have heard, it is faster in toggles than the XF1, and it is in fact a faster canopy which will dive longer. Perhaps its optimum wing loading is slightly more? Everyone I have talked to speaks very highly of it, it went down a treat at all the boogies in Europe last summer. Consensus appears that it does dive longer and has a more powerful flare, but I have yet to use one yet. By the way, wasn't Trigger's 129 was it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
