sundevil777

Did anyone address what that metal pull-up slotted plate was doing in there? A person could conclude the video was intentionally set-up to fail, but the plate just fell out so obviously?

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.

After a few years and few hundred jumps, regularly applying cypres lube on the inside radius of the 3 ring loop. The loop is kinda dark, but looks undamaged. The pic is showing the inside radius “flipped outward”. You can see a spec of lube at the left. I had lubed it a couple hours before this pic while hooking up the main. The lube absorbs into the fabric without making it appear saturated.

Consider whether logging features are actually worth it. I like my digital alti because it is a lot less bulky than an analog alti, and the precision while under canopy is appreciated. There are 2 Neptune 3 visual/audible altis for sale in the classifieds here. They do all the logging stuff. If I didn't already have a Neptune 2 that still works great, I would buy one of them.

With a VOG audible, there is especially no reason to be looking at your visual alti while jumping with others. Your eyes should be able to confirm that your audible isn't crazy, even at break-off time, you don't need to look at your alti nearly as often as you likely are. It is a big time waster when you should be concentrating on flying with others.

Ha! No surprise there. Did your AFF coach not ever use the hand signal for "fly better"? Just remember to do that! The major jumpsuit manufacturers know how to achieve a draggy RW suit with as little bagginess as possible. Don't just fill out an order form, make sure they know what you're trying to achieve to get their ideas. Type of fabric of course is important, and double layers, large diameter grippers on the outside of your legs (not the back of leg), along with inner leg grippers, knee padding, cordura for the booties and entire lower leg starting above the knee. The first suit i bought from Tony Suit had all of the above and their swoop cords, which I only used twice, so it is an expensive option not likely to actually be used. Dual arm grips might be useful for extra drag without flappiness.

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/24149-what's-wrong-with-wings-containers%3F/?tab=comments#comment-4555389

Most people don't like ambiguity. Lawyers require ambiguity for their profession to thrive

I like the supposedly tough glass and aluminum case, as the original version of the sonoalti felt cheaply designed and made. I like the font shape, which is similar to the Neptune/Atlas, much better than the awful font of the Viso/Ares. Expect low resale value. My advice is to not increase your altitude awareness with lights on your visual altimeter. If you really like the idea of lights, wouldn't one of the systems to have lights visible in the helmet be better? Don't be the guy wasting precious freefall time looking at your fancy lightshow of a visual alti before breakoff. Consider what audible altimeter(s) would work to obtain the altitude awareness you seek. There are lots of interesting audible products.

Forearm mounted alt is don’t work for those needing a lot of drag from loose fabric on the arms. A hand mount where you put the finger loop only through your index finger (a smaller than normal finger loop might help) and placing the alti more toward the thumb improves visibility without requiring so much rotation of the hand. I say getting an audible alti is a good idea even if you accept the concept of needing to be more alti aware before using it for break off indication. You can program the audible to give you only the lowest warning-reminder you don’t have time to try and fix it. I see no harm in that.

Precision has a different meaning than accuracy. Engineers get technical about such things. A digital readout isn’t necessarily more precise, it depends on how many digits/decimal places are actually used, but can still be inaccurate.