sundevil777

I think the Infinity by Velocity Sports Equipment is one of the best rigs at offering different size main and reserve combinations. The Racer if my memory is correct is also versatile in what can be ordered. Perhaps others can correct me if other mfgs also are as flexible in what can be offered. I have the good sense to have a 210 main at a WL of 1.12, and a 220 reserve. I've been well served by having low WL on the square reserve rides I've had. Anyway, I was wondering what you all thought of how much flexibility there is from mfgs in general to being able to combine a 100 main with a 200 reserve as just an example. I don't know if any mfg can do that. Perhaps it is really difficult as the number of combinations forces many different flap sizes and unintended interactions. Of course the demand is just not there. Until there is a demand for it, a 1.7 reserve WL on a swooping rig will be considered normal.

I believe the point was being made about main pilot chutes/deployment system, not main canopies. I don’t think stowless dbags are so common as to be considered where gear has converged.

I think that using non-zero porosity fabric on the lower skin does not result in lower performance. When a wing is flying at high angles of attack (such as during a flared landing), it is very important that the airflow over the top of the wing stay "attached"/not separate from the surface of the wing. If air is leaking out through the top skin fabric too much, then I think it has the effect of separating the airflow. Conditions on the bottom skin of the wing are very different, with separation not being an issue, so leakage through non-ZP fabric on the bottom doesn't matter. If it was possible to actually suck air into the wing through/from the top skin, then you get the ability to produce good lift at even higher angles of attack, as the airflow stays attached when it otherwise would not. This has been done on some experimental airplanes, including a Boeing 757 testbed that had part of the wing drilled with very tiny holes and a vacuum applied to suck air into the wing. So, air leaking out through the fabric matters a lot for the top skin, but not for the bottom, as long as it is not so much that cell pressurization suffers. That's my theory on why non zp is being applied on bottom skins, and I think it makes sense. In my previous life I was a mechanical design engineer, even did such for the Boeing company.

My review is in the gear section.

Their marketing bullet points includes IP67, that should do it.

Any more actual experience or 2nd hand experience to report? Rock sky market says they are great. Thank you.

What does everyone think of the option of having the Collin’s lanyard or not? If a rig could be made with or without the feature, might we be better off with good RSL ring placement and the simplicity of no Collins lanyard with any of the current MARDs? I understand the choice doesn’t exist, this is hypothetical.

The “factory pack” as it was called back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, could be done very much like a reserve is often packed, including the nose pointed forward like a propack. The psycho pack has been working well for many years here, Precision Parachutes had it listed on their website along with instructions. It isn’t so different.

I agree the view from the chin is not as good as the top of a helmet, but it still is nice. I disagree about interference with moving the head down for the chinmount.com design at least. That one is very tight/low profile to the helmet. I've used it with a gopro Session for almost 3 years. It is easy for jumpers to think they'll just cutaway or breakaway a snagged top mount camera. It is not so much the snag with a main that really bothers me. The unappreciated risk is entanglement of a top mounted camera with a deploying reserve bridle/lines/whatever. Reserves are often deployed while in a head high, even back to the wind orientation, resulting in the reserve deploying past a helmet. This is when being really snag resistant is critical. At least 2 incidents in the last few years of reserves being found on the ground fouled by cameras, I believe.

The history of a product is important. The design had a major flaw that presumably was fixed. Potential customers should know that, especially if they are asking specifically about the relative merit of the different mfgs fire/no-fire parameters. As an engineer, I know what it is like to develop a new product that already has competitors. Those competitors set a "target" for performance which most design engineers would want to at least equal. The designers of the Vigil had every opportunity to ensure their product was at least as good at deciding when to fire - they could compare it to their competition. To fail at that very basic task leaves this design engineer wondering in what other ways it might be lacking.

Like the batteries in an original Cypres, the Cypres II batteries are likely NOT simply industry-standard batteries. They probably have some unique set of specifications with ambitious performance requirements, etc. that an industry-standard battery might not meet. By having unique specifications, and therefore a unique "part number", they would then have the opportunity to negotiate with the supplier a long term agreement to continue supplying that battery.

Regarding fire/no-fire parameters: We should remember some incidents where the logic of an AAD wasn't smart enough to realize that it was being fooled by environmental conditions into thinking it needed to fire. Wasn't the C182 door opening incident with a Vigil? The incidents of units firing when trunk lids closed were Vigils, correct? The world record big way team suffered from units firing because of pressurization on a C-130, weren't those units Vigils? My memory is that the original Cypres units turned themselves off, and the Cypres II units didn't do anything (desirable). It would seem there is more "smarts" in the logic for a Cypres which allows it to realize you actually should try to detect unrealistic data, to recognize the pressure changes aren't realistic for a skydive. The other AAD manufacturers had a clear market they were going after when they decided to compete, they cut corners when it came time to the logic. Perhaps my memory is wrong.

I've seen at my DZ 2 of the Vmag mounts lost due to being knocked loose. I use the chinmount.com version. Great quality, lowest profile, low price, if you bump into something, it dislodges instead of departs. The Grellfab chinmount is similar in this respect, but the Grellfab is much bulkier than the chinmount.com mount. I ordered it with a bunch of extra "up" angle because I fly with my head lower than the young kids. Top of head stalk-type mounts are lousy not only because they can snag not only a main or main PC. More important is they are in a great position during most cutaways to snag part of the deploying reserve as it passes by the back of your head.

The environmental testing (vibration and temperature extremes) the cypres withstands at service time tells me which company really knows about electronics. In my previous life I did electronics packaging design engineering for Boeing. The value of the very thorough testing is easy to under-appreciate.

Think of it as reading -1000 feet. Something rotates to zero the dial.