swoopin

I posted what someone had said that has first hand knowledge. Maybe I was not clear enough, but it is not hearsay. It is fact.

The worst thing is that the unit may fire when you do not want it to. One already has (on the packing mat after a jump) and Airtec have stated that this problem is related and caused by static...

Actually you could easily satisfy by stating whether or not you were aware of any significant R & D of the peregrine prior to the 3DPIC comp. As I previously requested. I am reasonably certain there was not and the canopy was simply copied a changed a little. A covert xerox mission if you will. You are obviously avoiding such a statement to save face as it will be on the record. It need not have come to this but you are the one that delivered personal insults therefore prompting my clarification and questions. I have been to the PD factory (impressive), I have also had a discussion with John in recent history (nice guy, cool plane)... The facts still remain, Petra was taken to Florida by Curt, he was specifically told not to, and very shortly after Jay is competing on a very similar though less advanced copy. Once again I believe it is a good thing for most in the end, but that is how I believe it went down based on my observations. Shit I may well be incorrect but you are not making it look that way. You can call me all you like I find it amusing, but I believe you will continue to refrain from stating whether or not there was in fact a comprehensive (PD style ) R&D program for this canopy for, obvious reasons. That is all I have to offer the conversation at this point. No point in doing the scratched record thing when you side step the facts and I predict you will continue to avoid the answers to those questions so I will leave it at that. Toodles.

Lol. I post a true observation on a public forum. Get called a liar a conspiracy nut (by a moderator no less) and all of a sudden I am the one with sour grapes? No wonder this site is referred to as dork zone. Lets see what Ian has to say to my questions. He is the one that insinuated I was making things up. Now he has to decide if if wants to appease the minions here or keep his integrity among others in the swooping community that also know what I have stated. Tough call huh..?

Oh so the peregrine has nothing to do with the emergence of the Petra. gotcha. At least Aerosports admit they used PD's technology (Excalibur) to develop the Icarus extreme project. Not a conspiracy, it is how it happened simple. Imitation is the best form of flattery. This whole thing is terrific for everyone including all canopy companies. It is quite amusing to see people deny that that the Peregrine has anything to do with the Petra. 'Conspiracy theory' seems to be a weak excuse for; "I want you to be wrong, but cannot or do not want to explain why", these days.

If only there was a like button on here. ^

I tend to believe common sense and what I observe. Discussing the subject is usually more productive than questioning the integrity of a poster. Who I am, is far less interesting than what I am saying. What I am saying is actually known and discussed by a few. A PD factory team member even referred to his canopy as a 'Petrocity' for laughs when we were in Dubai.

It comes down to who you know and what your interests are really. You are PDFT, you don't want brand wars obviously. This is not brand wars, this is a discussion on the Peregrine. Having new canopies on the market is great, good for everyone, but the facts remain so I will refute your accusations as I am only passing information, not making things up. What I 'KNOW' is that I was involved in a conversation with people, that I will not name, that have knowledge of a Petra being flown to Florida when the individual was specifically instructed not to do so. I respect those people very much so do not insinuate they are lying without explaining please. It is quite possible it could have happened without your knowledge. You are also a moderator of this website as well as a PDFT member, so I will ask you this in all honesty; Are you willing to confirm that the Peregrine was a result of comprehensive research and development from PD alone or was it something that came up all of a sudden in 2011? I also understand from other conversations with other individuals that the sudden emergence of the 'Petrocity' and the limited access to it from those other than Jay caused a little tension in the PDFT. This I cannot confirm this for sure as the source is less reliable in the sense that it is 2nd hand knowledge rather than first hand, but it seems very plausible based on the other information I have. The reason I mention it is it reiterates how little knowledge anyone had of the R & D program and because you should have knowledge of whether this is the case or not so you should be able to confirm whether or not it is true. Without any of this information anyhow it still seems peculiar that the airfoil design results of R&D from two separate companies would end up as similar as these two wings with all the variables to consider. Attached is a photographic comparison of Petra and the very first PD prototype 9 cell, cross braced canopy in competition (3DPIC 2011). Can you say, on the record, that the Peregrine is not a result of plagiarism? Not trying to start a war, just adding to the conversation. This is a forum after all and not an advertisement.

Many countries have laws specifically designed to assist consumers such as yourself. It might be a good idea if those that feel they would like their money back to start exploring the laws pertaining to grantees in their country/state. Especially if your unit was purchased from a local reseller.

Yeah, considering he was the one that got his hands on a Petra in 2011, took it to Florida (having been told specifically not to), saving PD years and many thousands of dollars in R & D. [source:] an informed one.