Deimian

I actually think that so much flexibility in an AAD is a horrible idea. If that was possible you'll have all sorts of misconfigured AADs and a spike in misfires. People don't know how to turn off their VISOs, why should we play with AADs settings that freely and dangerously? Multimode AADs and user selectable altitude are already a possibility. And despite that simplicity there were misfires.

Each of those rigs can be more than $10K. They stole multiple. This is a DZ, not a private apartment or house. What has your private renters insurance to do with this situation? What about the lack of income because they can't put out as many tandems without those rigs? How is your remark of any relevance here? Who are you to tell someone else that their worries are not justified? Gowlerk is right. I don't know you, but you are certainly coming out in these forums as someone that should listen more and talk way less.

As mentioned before: that really depends on the canopy type and size.

Resist wear and UV light damage. It is far less likely to break when worn. Line choice is full of compromises. Some, especially larger lightly loaded canopies are less affected by being out of trim. What he said. Spectra is the strongest and longer lasting material. Big canopies fly just fine when out of trim. That's why you don't see spectra in smaller canopies, proper trim is key. In the middle range it is all a matter of preference. It is a trade off between durability and dimensional stability. If you are ok flying a wing that is not in its optimal shape, but you appreciate the peace of mind of the higher endurance of spectra, you use spectra. If you are diligent with maintenance and take care of your lines, and want your canopy to fly the the best it can, then you'd use HMA or Vectran.

You'd still have to pull the rings down, at least on rears. At least that's what I see (I don't jump with an RDS) Yes, you pull all of the rings down with a removable slider. What's the problem with that? No problem from my POV, but the OP asked how to make the slider quieter without pulling it down. An RDS was suggested, but if you still have to pull the rings down then the OP hasn't found a solution yet. I don't know why he doesn't want to pull it down though...... Nothing wrong with it IMO (quite the opposite)

You'd still have to pull the rings down, at least on rears. At least that's what I see (I don't jump with an RDS)

I didn't expect that. Why would they need to do it? What you describe sounds like replacing the laterals, instead of shortening them. I guess it depends on where are the ends of the webbing (at the MLW junction or hidden in the back)?

Well, for that particular problem, a very good fix. I'd guess that it takes a fair amount of work to remove the stitching, unstuck the glued bits, cut the ends of the laterals, sandwich and glue the laterals and MLW together again, and re-stitch it. But if the glue can be removed easily and without damaging the webbing (I guess that is not really a concern since this is offered by the manufacturer) I don't see how that could be a problem.

This is weird. I bought an X-Fire second hand. Turns out it was missing the "minirib" of the right stabilizer. The sent me a new one right away, no questions asked.

I couldn't disagree more with your last statement. Particularly when considering the first sentence. You are basically saying that a torn canopy is not a reason to cut away. What the hell? I understand that with a Zero loaded at 0.77 a rip on a cell is survivable. Now, imagine a novice jumper with a regular canopy reading this, being afraid of cutting away, and having a torn canopy. Does it sound like reasonable advice to you? I can't believe an instructor wrote that. BTW: Who doesn't open with their belly to earth?

I've seen plenty of Sabres in Europe. Every weekend I see 3 or 4. But obviously they are not that popular anymore. And yes, you can use Sabre 2 for everything. Not that I would recommended them for wingsuiting for instance (which is a specific kind of jump....), but it is not downright stupid. I flew Sabre 2s in different sizes for a few years, and the openings are far from being tricky. For sure they aren't on heading, but I don't recall having twists or wild openings ever on a Sabre 2.

Trade in? Is there any short of trade in program somewhere?

"Best" is very subjective and very dependent on your needs. But it is certainly the best for a lot of people out there. Canopies are compared to Sabre 2 because it is probably the most common canopy out there, and its design is right in the middle point of a lot of compromises. You can use Sabre 2s for anything you want. But if your needs are specific then you need a specific canopy. Not necessarily better, but more specific, with a design less balanced and prioritizing those needs, sacrificing other areas. PS: The original Sabre is a great canopy. Does it open harder than modern designs is is somewhat less efficient? Yes. Is it perfectly usable and safe nowadays? Yes. Does it improve with a larger slider? In my opinion yes. That's why I bought a new slider for mine when I had it.

Thanks for the answer. Do you know when they'll be available and if there will be some sort of demo program?

Looks like a very interesting canopy. Do you happen to know why the miniribs on the tail are not equally spaced between ribs in the bottom skin? It looks odd. Does it have inflatable stabilizers? Can't really tell from the pictures, but it looks like it doesn't.

That's not true. The reserve PC is doing what is supposed to do. It is fully inflated. Its pull force is determined mainly by its size. You are ignoring the other variables in the equation. Falling on the back (so the bridle is not pulling on the bag directly as the first point of contact is the jumpers body), and a tight reserve tray with boxed corners. I doubt any other reserve PC of that size would pull the reserve out in that particular situation.

You could have a collapsed (or partially collapsed) PC.

As an observation from a friend: It should pack rather big. It is just partly cross-braced, but it is a 9 cell canopy, with miniribs, so probably it would pack as bit as a velocity, or a tiny bit more. All that without seeing one, so take it with a pinch of salt.

In a fluid wings video they also use double wrapping: https://vimeo.com/210294491 No such thing as a manual though.

I'd argue the opposite. As you transition to more HP canopies, you need to slowly develop your skills and perception. A Stiletto will get you into the bad habit of making a lowish turn, because you need it to swoop. Then you transition to a Velo, make a lowish turn because your perception and experience tells you that it is ok, and you are screwed. The Stiletto was probably the best canopy to transition to cross-braced canopies in 1998. That's 20 years ago. We have better options today. Just my 2 cents. what is that option? Sabre 2, Crossfire 2, Crossfire 3, X-Fire, Tesla, Katana (but demands more from the pilot than any of the others IMO), Zulu, Odyssey..... In my opinion any of these canopies are better suited than a Stiletto, to get into crossbraced canopies with longer recovery arcs. I am not saying that the Stiletto is a bad canopy though.

I'd argue the opposite. As you transition to more HP canopies, you need to slowly develop your skills and perception. A Stiletto will get you into the bad habit of making a lowish turn, because you need it to swoop. Then you transition to a Velo, make a lowish turn because your perception and experience tells you that it is ok, and you are screwed. The Stiletto was probably the best canopy to transition to cross-braced canopies in 1998. That's 20 years ago. We have better options today. Just my 2 cents.

You guys need to set up a demo program in Europe. I'd happily try one this summer if you did . The lack of demo program in Europe is also the reason why I am flying an X-Fire now instead of a Tesla. I could try the X-Fire before buying, but I couldn't try the Tesla. BTW: How does the Gangster compare to the Tesla for swooping? How do their recovery arcs compare?

I think you are ignoring the fact that most people don't live anywhere close to a gear store that has rigs from every manufacturer out there in stock, just to show them to potential customers. Even if you go to a boogie, you would have just a few rig manufacturers there. And what if the boogie is in 5 months, but you want to buy it in 2 weeks? Talking to people of your area is obviously a good thing, but that means that you are limited to a small fraction of choices and to the local bias. Seeing it in person is obviously the best, but not always possible. In this time and age having a decent website is a must, whether you like it or not. Comparing it with cars is non-sense. In a small town you can have tens of car dealers from tens of manufacturers. That doesn't happen in skydiving, sorry.

Tell them to piss off. Downsizing always carries an increased risk. If you have no interest in flying smaller and higher performance wings, that's totally legit. Downsizing is not a requirement of any type, and for a lot of people is a road leading to scary stories. I am on my 4th downsize as licensed skydiver (170->150->136->120->113), so I am saying that as someone with a different approach than you. You and your friends need to see that your approach is totally valid, and in many ways better and more reasonable than the "let's downsize as fast as we can" trend. One of my buddies downsized once in 600 jumps. His wingload is roughly 1.2. He's one of the most heads up guys I know and doesn't care about all these fashion trends. I respect him heaps for that. Don't hesitate to be like him.

It's normally 3rd party insurance. Everyone has health insurance in Europe, so that is ignored. But I guess it can depend on where in Europe. Do you have any particular destination?