NWPoul 1 #26 March 30, 2005 QuoteI don't think the built in turn was a design issue. Like most things that fly or fall, symetry will result in heading control without input. When something is designed symetrically, but constructed asymetrically, then a turn will result. I think they were simply poorly built I think the same, as owner of one of the TEMPO reserve I only hope that PISA has made not only reinforcement (which actually a very good for me :) ) but also improve their manufactouring process since 2001 (or at least that tempo in my container was made to fly straight:) ) Quote I edited my origional post to remove any hostility. I apologise for my pointed reply. ;) your post wasn't too hostile for me (and it's statement was mostly right) so I wasn't hurt:)Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #27 March 30, 2005 If it makes you feel any better, I still have a Tempo 120 in a spare, spare rig (no 3) that I've used before. It flies straight, and I've landed it without injury loaded to 1.6, 5000ft AMSL in 30 deg C windless conditions. (I did do a 180 degree turn prior to landing.. and have 18 reserve rides..) tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #28 March 30, 2005 QuoteOh, BTW... PD is soon to be launching a new line of lightweight reserves that pack very small. This meaning that you can pack a 143' where you used to pack a 106. Does it get any better? Don't hold your breath on these canopies for the very near future. PD still has to test, certify, market, manufactor and all the other goodies associated with a canopy. Look for it maybe before next PIA.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rsein 0 #29 March 30, 2005 >>>Don't hold your breath on these canopies for the very near future. PD still has to test, certify, market, manufactor and all the other goodies associated with a canopy. *** I know, and meanwhile I'm sticking with my PD Reserve. I have a Odyssey NJ from when I flew a Vengeance 120 and have not bought a smaller rig just because I feel more comfortable knowing I have a PD 126 on my back rather than a smaller reserve or a Tempo 120 (which fits in a XRS). I would love to get my hands on the smallest Micron out there but if that means I have to pack a 99' reserve in it (testing the higher limits of it's capability) or a 120' of a brand that I don't trust, I'll wait for PD to come out with something new. Hell, I waited 4 years until I felt ready and capable to fly a small Velocity, I can wait for a reserve. HISPA #5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kris 0 #30 March 31, 2005 Quote I heard PISA made some revisions in Tempo's design in 2001 which made it more "strong" (but increased the pack volume)... Do anyone know something more about that? Was "built in turn" only an "old" Tempo's problem or not (or may be opposite this issue of a new desing?)? I have one of the Tempo "2.0's" with the extra reinforcement and mine has the slight built in turn. It only took a few inches of toggle to compensate and it landed me just fine, but it wasn't as nice a ride as a PD-R. That said though, I'm looking to replace it with a PD or Smart as I need something that fits in my rig better.Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kris 0 #31 March 31, 2005 QuoteA friend of mine had 2 TEMPO reserve rides at Rantoul this year. She jumps a Tempo 120 not even close to the max wing loading and stalled them both injuring herself. Another friend of mine with over 6,000 jumps stalled another Tempo and broke his ankle. With this in mind, and all I've heard and seen during the years, I'll stick to PDR's Oh, BTW... PD is soon to be launching a new line of lightweight reserves that pack very small. This meaning that you can pack a 143' where you used to pack a 106. Does it get any better? I've learned that can happen with a lot of reserves due to the fact that some have a shorter control range, people not doing practice flares before landing, or trying to flare it like a conventional main. My Tempo lands just fine. *shrug*Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rsein 0 #32 March 31, 2005 people not doing practice flares before landing, or trying to flare it like a conventional main. My Tempo lands just fine. *** Well, not all people have the chance to practice flares when they find themselves under a reserve. I guess the best bet would be demoing the reserve. Some companies offer to do that. (Jump it as your main a few times) HISPA #5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spizzzarko 0 #33 March 31, 2005 There's a very easy way to allieviate that problem. Bump up your pull altitude, and your decision altitude. I don't like to be in freefall below 3.5, and my decision altitud is about 2.0. If I were jumping bigger more docile equipment, then maybee I would lower those altitudes, but how much stuff really happens in freefall below 4.0, so maybee, I wouldn't lower those altitudes. Tthose who do not get to do practice flares bring it on themselves. So to hear people crying on DZ.com, about how they didn't have time to make prcatice flares, is just assignine. As far as tempo's and PD's go, like I said earlier, I have landed both and I like the PD's better. Look at this thread even... Look how many people are talking about tempo's stalling, having a built in turn, and what not. You really don't hear about to many PD Reservse blowing up like Ravens do. You don't hear about to many PD-R's stalling on landing. You don't hear about to many PD-R's requiring a grip of toggle input to just fly straight. All of these traits are UN-ACCEPTABLE! A reserve should fly straight, and not stall above your shoulders. If you had a main that stalled with your toggle inputs above your shoulders, would you land it? If you had a main that had a built in turn that required more than 50% toggle input to keep it flying straight, would you land it? I wouldn't land either of those, so, is it to much to ask of canopy manufactures to build a product that fly's correctly? The people out there that continue to purchase these inferrior products are condoning this practice of manufactures making & selling shitty products, just to make a buck. All in all it's your life, and what you wear on your back is your choice, and I really don't care if you live or die, but I have made the choice to jump with quality products. In this sport you get what you pay for, so if you'r looking to save a few buck's then your going to pay for it elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rsein 0 #34 March 31, 2005 >>>There's a very easy way to allieviate that problem. Bump up your pull altitude, and your decision altitude. I don't like to be in freefall below 3.5, and my decision altitud is about 2.0. *** I agree with every word you say, my argument is that, even though we plan to open high, there are some circumstances when we end opening a bit lower than we'd like. i.e. stinger on a big way, if you do a barrel roll and see someone above (whatever!) The point is that it sometimes happens and if you happen to have a malfuntion in one of those jumps, mabe you don't have a lot of time to practice flares and find out if the canopy stalls witha simple tuggle turn. I guess it all comes down to what you said... "In this sport you get what you pay for, so if you'r looking to save a few buck's then your going to pay for it elsewhere." HISPA #5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
