Katana -vs- Velocity

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Ok, just reading a thread about Katanas, and I see a lot of people like to say that they are just a crossbrace w/o the braces, or that they are just a step down from a Velo, etc. What are the real differences here? When does it become important to have the crossbrace vs the non-crossbrace? If it truly is just a matter of keeping form in the canopy, at what w/l is that actually necessary?

Just satisfy my curiousity and answer these few questions and make any other comments about the differences between them. I see comments like the one below and I get curious about the real differences. Is the only difference simply the crossbrace keeps its shape better, and the Katana has less riser pressure? Then why would anyone want a Katana if the other keeps shape better and is the same performance?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Im really tired of the term "crossbraced" being used to "name" a high performance canopy!.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Me too! The crossbracing is not what adds performance, it's one way to deal with the added stress on a canopy when you build it to perform a certain way. It's like saying a particular car is not going to be dangerously fast because look, it doens't have a five-point harness.

Crossbracing is indicative of a HP canopy... the lack of crossbracing is in no way indicative that it is not HP though.

thx.
-A

[dploi 0]

IMO (Katana 97 vs Velo 96, 2:1 WL), the Katana flies like a Velocity with...

- quicker toggle response
- smoother openings
- higher rear riser pressure
- slightly less front riser pressure (there is very little in both canopies)
- less low end lift
- marginally slower speed at the end of a dive
- feels marginally "softer"/less twitchy
- loses performance over 2:1 (the Velo likes a hair more loading)

It feels faster than the same size Velo to me in standard and rear riser flight modes. The thin profile and wide aspect ratio gives it more of a "slice-the-air"/"high-pitched" feel than the Velo in standard flight, says I. The canopy is aptly named.

While the planforms are very different, the trim is similar and the position of your body relative to the canopy (very far forwards) is almost identical. The result is two ground hungry (read "fast") canopies that are easy to dive.

To answer the biggest question that people have. The recovery arcs are basically the same. The Velo builds up a hair more speed, and then maintains it longer at the end of the swoop. Both canopies seem to like input to stay level through a swoop, and are better "trimmed" into gates on rears (as opposed to letting the canopy recover naturally).

This is different than what I've found in the 27 cell canopies on the market, which tend to build speed quickly across a shorter, sharper recovery arc, and then "turf surf" with minimal input.

IMO, PD's high performance offerings require a little more work than the competition. They're very easy to fly, actually, but just require more attention to be flown properly and safely. Very different beasts than anything else on the market.

Your mileage will more than likely vary.

Edited to fix typos and add: I get about 20% more from the Velo than the Katana on distance and marginally better on speed. I get better zone accuracy with the Katana then the Velo. This is just my experience. Really looking forward to the ZZ canopy coming out later.

"Working man's Velocity" is a good description, Ian. The Katana is great for wingsuit pilots that want to swoop, but have scared themselves away from the Velo's openings.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

That was a good review, thanks! Now I have an idea of the actual differences not just the common "katana is almost a velocity."

:)
-A

[ianmdrennan 2]

A good way of looking at it would be, the Katana is the 'working mans' cross brace.

It has all the goodies to get the blood pumping, but sacrifices some performance (compared to an xbrace) for better openings, riser pressure, etc.

edit: Short post cause most of this has already been covered in the previous post

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[marks 0]

Quote

A good way of looking at it would be, the Katana is the 'working mans' cross brace.

It has all the goodies to get the blood pumping, but sacrifices some performance (compared to an xbrace) for better openings, riser pressure, etc.

edit: Short post cause most of this has already been covered in the previous post

Blues,
Ian

angela, great question..

if your going to load heavy, a crossbraced is better off.

but you need to understand what loading heavy is first.

to load a canopy to VERY VERY extremes, is for VERY experienced pilots. and almost requires the crossbracing to handle it. the katana will fly nice and have the response your looking for at lower loadings,

in my opinion, "it CANT be wrong BECAUSE it is an opinion" so dont argue. in my opinion, if your going to load up to 2.0, you need to go crossbraced... but of corse, you need the experience to load any thing at 2.0 first.... and that is a HELL of alot of experience...

awesome question. and im sure there will be many more valid opinions!.

[marks 0]

Quote

That was a good review, thanks! Now I have an idea of the actual differences not just the common "katana is almost a velocity."

:)
-A

load a katana at 2.0 and try to shut it down. you will have to run alot..

load a velo at 2.0 and you wont have to run as much

better bottom end lift when loaded heavy, due to being more efficiant.

but loading above 1.8 is VERY high. and if you think you can handle it, "not you" but anyone" you better KNOW you can, and get coaching, or take your time. because that is VERY! high wingloadings...

[dploi 0]

Quote

load a katana at 2.0 and try to shut it down. you will have to run alot.

Well, downwind and no wind. I load mine at 2:1 and have no problem coming to a stop with only a little headwind. But you're right, above 1.8:1, cross-braced is where it's at.

At 2:1, I feel I'm right at the edge of this canopy's performance, and can even notice shorter swoops if I'm wearing a camera, a wingsuit, and a lot of clothing underneath. But... the forgiveness in the openings makes it a great canopy for a dedicated wingsuit rig without losing the fun canopy ride down.

This is all assuming that you have the sufficient experience to handle these loadings. So we're on the same page, I follow Germain's 1.x where x is 1/100 of your jumps philosophy (and the jumper is making at least a few hundred skydives per year and trains to fly that loading).

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Thanks to everyone for the reviews. I was not looking to get into peoples beliefs on when one is ready to load a canopy, experience necessary, etc. This thread was strictly a comparison of canopies, please treat it as such. The info given has been great!

Thanks.
Angela.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

but loading above 1.8 is VERY high.

So, you would say 1.8 or so is maybe the point where a cross-brace could start to be a benefit, then?

Thanks for all the info.
-A

[dploi 0]

It totally depends on the canopy. I feel the Katana is best loaded at 2:1, and can't say the same for other non-cross-braced canopies I've flown or been around. Some canopies (even modern ones) lose performance when you go over 1:5 or even 1.3. Even then, the WL at which performance is lost is going to depend on the size, as well.

But let's just look at the modern, high performance, nine cell class. That would be the Katana, Vengeance, Crossfire 2, Nitron, Vision, Comp Cobalt, Samurai, Firebolt, Demon, Rage, and whatever else I'm forgetting. You get the picture. Yeah, I'd say that 1.8:1 is probably as high as you want to go before moving to a cross-braced canopy. That doesn't necessarily mean "I load my Crossfire at 1.8 so I need to get a VX I load at 2.0". It means that you've reached the WL limit for your planform, and it's time to change type.

Changing type and size at the same time can be an enormous handful. If you are a current swooper (read, at least a few hundred jumps a year, swooping on 99% of your landings) and want to get into the top tier of high performance canopies, at least spend some time with the new wing type at the same wingloading. It's totally plausible to change type and a little bit of size together, but demo/borrow and pull high to see what you want to do.

Perfect example: Going from a Katana loaded at 1.8, after maybe 600 jumps or so, to a VX loaded at 2.0 won't be a big deal. The VX might even feel easier/slower in some regards. But going from a Crossfire 2 loaded at 1.8, with the same experience, to a Velocity loaded at 2 is a very bad idea for most people.

Again, your mileage may vary.

Hmmm... not really a Katana vs Velo thread anymore, eh?

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

but loading above 1.8 is VERY high.

So, you would say 1.8 or so is maybe the point where a cross-brace could start to be a benefit, then?

Thanks for all the info.
-A

depending on the size of the person and the size of the wing, i would say yes... in most cases.

[Spizzzarko 0]

depending on the size of the person and the size of the wing, i would say yes... in most cases.


What would you say about 5'11" 198lbs... Velo 103 swooping in CO.

[marks 0]

Quote

What would you say about 5'11" 198lbs... Velo 103 swooping in CO.

uhhhh!!!!!


i need a bigger wing and ALOT more weight!

[Spizzzarko 0]

uhhhh!!!!!





Fat kid's get no love...

[dploi 0]

Quote

Quote

depending on the size of the person and the size of the wing, i would say yes... in most cases.

What would you say about 5'11" 198lbs... Velo 103 swooping in CO.

You have to expect some adjustments when choosing to live and skydive a mile above everyone else in the world. ;)


And don't knock Colorado fat boys. Have you ever tried jogging at 5,000'?

[Spizzzarko 0]

Have you ever tried jogging at 5,000'?

Jogging at 6500 (Colorado Springs) sucks ass. I quit jogging, and have turned to a rather strict regimine of drinking beer heavilly to make up for it.

[dploi 0]

You are a wise man. I pity those who have yet to realize that beer is better than jogging. It's so simple and logical, but so many just don't get it.

Can we rename this thread to "beer vs jogging"?

[livenletfly 0]

why would going from a 1.8 xrssfire to a 2.0 velo be bad, but jumping from a katana to a vx be good? the katana only came out last year. and the canopy tranfer your saying wouldnt be good is a very common one. if anything in the days befor the katana the crossfire was the closest thing to the velo as far as dive and recovery. so id have to say its not a good move, its a great one.
care to explain?
jeff

>

[Shark 0]

Drinking beer at 6500' is cool, too!

[dploi 0]

Quote

why would going from a 1.8 xrssfire to a 2.0 velo be bad, but jumping from a katana to a vx be good? the katana only came out last year. and the canopy tranfer your saying wouldnt be good is a very common one. if anything in the days befor the katana the crossfire was the closest thing to the velo as far as dive and recovery. so id have to say its not a good move, its a great one.
care to explain?
jeff

There is a drastic difference in the speed and recovery arc of front riser turns and overall flying style between the Crossfire 2 and the Velocity. Far less difference between the Katana and Velocity (compared to XF2). It's more the overall feel than anything else.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It totally depends on the canopy. I feel the Katana is best loaded at 2:1, and can't say the same for other non-cross-braced canopies I've flown or been around
.***
I quess I do not understand that statement because the Katana is nothing more than a Crossfire! Period.
One will not not do what the other will do! The canopies are almost identical! The line trim is a little steeper, other than that the same!
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

• Quote

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

quess I do not understand that statement because the Katana is nothing more than a Crossfire! Period.

Quote

The canopies are almost identical!

Even if it is true that the canopies are almost identical, in my experiences they fly nothing alike. I have found the Katana to be a MUCH more aggressive canopy than the XF2.

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Quote

quess I do not understand that statement because the Katana is nothing more than a Crossfire! Period.

Quote

The canopies are almost identical!

Even if it is true that the canopies are almost identical, in my experiences they fly nothing alike. I have found the Katana to be a MUCH more aggressive canopy than the XF2.

***
I find them to have the same performance as do most other canopy pilots.

The only difference is the Katana has a longer recovery arc from the increase in angle of attack in the line trim.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[dploi 0]

Quote

I quess I do not understand that statement because the Katana is nothing more than a Crossfire! Period.
One will not not do what the other will do! The canopies are almost identical! The line trim is a little steeper, other than that the same!
MEL

There is no way that this statement is based on experience.

The canopies feel totally different. The Katana feels and sounds far faster, and is far more responsive to inputs than the Crossfire 2 in my experience. Front riser pressure is a fraction of the Crossfire 2 and doesn't build up anywhere near as quickly. The toggle response is a LOT faster and the rear riser pressure is far heavier.

The construction is totally different. The Katana compared to the Crossfire 2 has a wider aspect ratio (2.74:1 -- the widest on the modern market), thinner profile (I faced off the ribs of the two myself), and more elliptical shape (I've laid a KA97 on top of a XF2-99). The nose is totally different: it is not closed like a Crossfire 2 at all, but it is open with lower profile inlets. The lineset is longer, trimmed steeper, and positions suspended weight closer to the front of the canopy. They are both nine-cell ellipticals -- the similarities end there.

How could you possibly think that these canopies are identical? This assessment simply could only be based on hearsay, and not experience examining or flying both canopies. They are completely different beasts. Have you actually flown both of these? I put 400 jumps on a Katana 97. I only put 50 on a borrowed Crossfire 2 99, but I feel that it was enough to make a comparison. I demoed the Katana 97 after borrowing the Crossfire 2, and decided to buy that, instead, after three jumps -- the difference between the two canopies is stark.

Not to knock the Crossfire 2, though -- it's an awesome canopy, is my second favorite non-crossbraced elliptical nine-cell, and I would recommend it as readily as I recommend the Katana. I compared these two very, very closely before making the decision to purchase and found that the Katana is a very different beast in all respects. You can't pull this "they're the same canopy" wool over my eyes.