Crossfire3 reviews?

[Ste87 0]

As per title: anyone tried the new Crossfire3?

[TommyBotten 0]

I got a few jumps in on a 119 loaded 1.6 in December. I really enjoyed the canopy and I think its a nice step up/evolution from the Crossfire 2. Openings are nice, similar to the CF2. A bit snively but on heading and well staged. Harness input is much more responsive and it is easier to get diving than its predecessor. The recovery arc is short and similar to that of a CF2.

The rear risers are where the canopy impresses me the most - They are responsive and fun to fly up top and leveling off with them is easy to tune in and predictable, while the transition to toggles feels just perfect with loads of power in the bottom end of the flare.

Toggle inputs are also very responsive and the canopy's slow flight characteristics are nice. It does feel a bit more wiggly close to the toggle stall point than a CF2.

All in all a very nice canopy, but I don't see it covering the gap to higher performance canopies as well as I had expected and perhaps hoped for.

[Ste87 0]

Thanks for the review. Very helpful.

I come from a Sabre2 135 loaded at 1.29 and was thinking about a Xf3 129, which would be loaded at 1.35. Hopefully should be an ok transition for my level of experience (a bit over 300 jumps). Seems like a good option to slowly transition into higher performance canopies.

[T_C 0]

I got a chance to put 11 jumps on the XF3 109 loaded at 1.95. I fly a XF2 109.

Openings were excellent - comfortable & consistent (both subterminal & terminal). Snivel was slightly longer than my XF2.

In flight, the control range was very similar to the XF2 - long & predictable with plenty of notice before the stall point. Front riser pressure is lighter than XF2 & doesn't build as fast. Harness turns were significantly easier with XF3 & there was significantly more bottom-end lift when flaring.

XF3 dives significantly more than it's predecessor. With the same turn mechanics, I had to move my 90 height up by around 160ft. I found it also had more power on the rears.

Sorry OP, I know you asked for a review rather than a direct comparison, but I thought others might find it useful.

[Deimian 43]

I do find it very useful . I am a bit confused though, somebody else said above that the recovery arc is short and similar to XF2.

[TommyBotten 0]

Deimian

I do find it very useful . I am a bit confused though, somebody else said above that the recovery arc is short and similar to XF2.

Might be wingloading. Might be technique. Or I might be wrong. I did my 90s and 270s more or less the same altitude as I did it on the CF2 with ~450 and ~800 feet respectively. But note that I did not do a side by side comparison as I haven't flown a CF2 for a few months.

[Ste87 0]

Thanks for all the inputs guys. Very very helpful stuff.

[abean3 0]

The stocklist has been moving on the Icarus website. Anybody else out there with some feedback?

[sedsquare 14]

Bueller? Bueller? I too am interested in opinions from those who have flown the Crossfire3. Hoping to try one out for myself soon.

[Jaysus 1]

Hola!
Me and another friend should receive our crossfire3's on friday from our rigger. If the weather is fine we should be able to put some jumps on them at the weekend.

I am changing from a Safire2 139 to a Crossfire3 119. My friend is changing from a Safire2 129 to a Crossfire3 109.

So we might be able to tell you something after we had a few jumps, but we won't be able to provide you with the information on how the Crossfire3 does compare to the Crossfire2.

Any other specific questions that we might be able to answer, coming from the Safire2 background?

[madkiwi 0]

Hi everyone, looks like reviews are still pretty thin on the ground! We're working on getting more together. I won't add our thoughts on the canopy except to say that the recovery arc is definitely longer than the C2, no question.

Here's a review I got from a guy in NC, USA, I have also attached a video he sent of a crosswind landing after I believe a 135 degree turn:

"I love my crossfire 3 so far. I have about 50 or 60 jumps on it. Previously I flew a crossfire 2 107, my crossfire3 is a 109, both loaded at about 1.8ish

I'm a better canopy pilot now than when I was on my Crossfire 2, but the differences are obvious. I had about 100 jumps on my Crossfire 2 with just starting to swoop toward the end of owning it.

The crossfire3 wants to dive more and stay in the dive more, you can feel the recovery arc draw out a bit more than the crossfire 2. There's a lot of power in the rears coming out of a dive. When you hit the rears just right you can feel the added distance and it's strong on toggles to finish out the flare.

Openings are just as good, if not better than the crossfire 2!

I get a lot of looks and compliments on the canopy because it's gorgeous and can fly the hell out of it. Overall great canopy and I love that it's just a bit more high performance than the Crossfire 2. It gives you a great bridge to the more aggressive crossbraced canopies."

Hope this helps. Cheers, Hamish
NZ Aerosports

[shadeland 5]

I've got a Crossfire 2 129 (WL 1.4) that I've put about 500 jumps on and I've got a Crossfire 3 109 (WL 1.7) that I've put about 20 or so jumps on.

There's zero crispiness in the Crossfire 2 129, from both age and being a desert canopy for a while, so that's a difference there.

Openings: Nothing I've ever jumped opens as nice and as consistent as a Crossfire 2 or 3. They're comfortable and the deceleration is nice and smooth through the entire cycle. The openings are also consistent in terms of comfort: I've yet to be wacked by a Crossfire. They're easy to pack: Nothing special needs to be done.

Flare: They have a really strong flare. Even on a straight-in approach, no additional speed, it's rare that I do anything but easily stand up a landing. Both the 2 and 3 have phenomenal flare.

Crossfire 2 versus 3: Someone noted that the recovery arc is longer. I would have disagreed initially, as the first few jumps it felt pretty much the same. However this past weekend I did a turn a little lower and the ground came up pretty fast. I flattened the turn and still landed straight and level, but I probable went wings level at 20 feet. It's not hugely longer, but it does want to stay in the turn more than the Crossfire 2. That could be the WL change, but it seems consistent with other reviews. (I don't swoop, my turns are typically toggle 90s).

I'd say the openings on the 3 are a bit snappier than the 2, but still well staged with a smooth consistent deceleration. If you're worried about your neck/back, it's hard to beat a Crossfire 2/3 I think.

[T_C 0]

If you swoop it & really get the canopy diving, the recovery arc is significantly longer than the crossfire 2.

Not really aimed at you, just wanting to point it out for anyone who has been swooping the XF2 & is trying the 3. Turn heights are WAY higher.

[danielcroft 2]

I've always had an issue with this characteristic - if you build more energy your recovery changes. In my head that means the better my turn, the higher I have to start so, as I improve, my room for error is constantly decreasing. I've had other people tell me this about some wings and it's always made me a little uncomfortable. Clearly, things change in canopy performance as we build energy but if that's a function of any wing, I don't know why, for some wings, people comment on it.

Not a negative comment on the Crossfire 3, I have several friends who have them and love them - nothing but good reviews from them.

[T_C 0]

Maybe I was unclear, sorry. The recovery arc is longer than that of the crossfire 2 - says it on the tin. What I meant to say is, with the same turn technique, heights must be increased for the xf3, as it dives more in general.

[danielcroft 2]

Fair enough, maybe I was just reading too much into your post.