roq

If you live in europe you can see and try my 85 mod in Skydive Portugal any time. Roq

I was to see and to compare the new lines technora, and I was very convinced that are in fact a good option for new HP canopys without cascade lines. Technora 160 (about 400 lb) with 1mm diameter have half diameter of the spectra 550 lb New Technora is Impregnated Line that gives maintenance of the length and diameter, light and UV protection, low abrasion, preservation of the trim, low resistance to the advance A canopy without cascade line have about more 50% of lines than the cascade canopy, but nevertheless has a resistance surface inferior to the advance to a canopy with cascade lines with the double of the diameter. Roq

I didn't diffuse rumors. I just answered to somebody that asked concerning incidents with hma lines, indicating the places where the subject was spoken, for each person to read for itself, nothing else. In whole the case, I always say that is known that the old hma lines had less resistance to the abrasion that the dynema or spectra lines. I don't have anything against lines of any type, but there are some dozens of canopys with HMA and there are thousands with spectra. Check the incidents with some and with others roq

I have more than 600 jumps with Atair canopys below 100 sft (Cobalt and Impulse) load from 2 to 2.3 and some jumps with 120. I never had any hard opening I never needed to cut because line twists. I just once cut, but because I opened a togle unintentionally with line twists. I think when more low wing-loading, more low hard sipining possibility. I consider the canopys Atair the best than there is all over the world in opennings and in flight. In my pack job I have been taking care with the placement of the slider. I quartered slider with a slider lip with 3" width out of the center cel, I think that is very important to avoid hard openings. For better two stage openings work, I roll the nose of 4 out cell 1/2 turn for center (not inside center cell). The center cell is open. I don't push the nose inside. I only push the nose soft inside for to adjust and to be centered in pack job. I make 1 inch line stows. The 1 inch line stows (with low tight ruber bands) is good idea because low weigh and logical low inertia of the small canopys like the 85 cobalt. 400 jumps ago I use tapes for ruber bands inner the bag. See Jumpshack site In normal pack job I roll the tail 5 turns. In " type psico-pack" don't roll the tail and pack job. For put inside bag I use normal S.Fold. .(it pack job is the better). I use 21 " ZP pilot chute for 85, is better I use normal ruber bands Mil. spec. with two turns in bag tapes and one turn in stow lines. For low speed openings ( I jump normaly 3500 to 4000 ft when launch static line students I put my head a bit down in opening) I put centered body and relax position in all openings roq

translate with http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr roq

see germany thread http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Nitro%2Bhma&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dde.rec.sport.fallschirm Like I know the spectra lines can break when are cut or with great shock. I believe in the technological evolution and that the current lines AHM is good an reliable, but were not in the past. roq

for example see accident thread http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&th=176bbc307a8105b9&rnum=7 "accident with a Canopy with hma lines" roq

I know some skydivers that began to jump Still load for 1.5/1.6 after they have 150 jumps and in the 300 following jumps they made 4 cut ways because line twists. Even with a cobalt 1.9 is load exaggerated for only 300 jumps, and I believe that only for luck and care excess due to the little experience you didn't have unpleasant surprises with the Still. Experience, proficiency and knowledge doesn't buy himself with the canopys. Is necessary to gradually develop for not "tripping" when fewer is waited. roq

Before you get out the canopy is better one check of lines dimensions by rigger. Is possible, but no probable, any mistake with lines in factory. Roq

The contrail is basically the same canopy platform of the cobalt and is manufactured by Atair for Germany dealer Performance Variable. The diferences of the Contrail for Cobalt is basically in trim and and the only 1 panel for cell in top skin of the Contrail instead two of the cobalt and more short recovery arc in Contrail. The trim of actual Contrails is a bit less inclined and the glide ratio of Contrail is more flat than the Cobalt In past the Contrails they were trimed more close to actual Cobalt. I have one cobalt 135 with five years and it fly very similar to Atair cobalt and impulse canopys with the recovery arc more long than actual Contrails. In my opinion, for jumpers with low experience, about 100 jumps, this canopys is good and safe when load until 1.2. I have ex-studentes with 100 jumps jumping Impulse canopys load to 1.2 with very good results. They have opennings, flying and landings better than the intermediate and student canopys The contrails have no two steep opennings like the cobalt or impulse Roq

I see the video Is not bag twist is canopy twist. Is canopy twist happen after inflate. I think that have any asymmetry in your body position or in harness when the canopy inflate. Like I can see, the canopy is very sensitive (twichy)... Roq

I think the big canopy is less danger for turbulence conditions, because lower speed in all conditions of the big canopys, and also the big canopy is better if the pilot have less experience. But I think the um HP canopy is better for strong winds and turbulence conditions when driven for a good and experienced pilot and if the canopy is good and reliable. I jump in demo jumps for tight places with accuracy Parafoil 252 light loaded and have no problems with turbulence conditions but I have problems with strong winds because the parafoil don't move forward. With my HP canopys 75, 85 and 120 I don't have problems with strong winds and turbulences. In my opinion the reasons because the HP canopys is more danger in turbulence conditions is: Bad design of the canopy Bad pilot control canopy technique and experience Fast natural speed in all conditions of the HP canopys Driving the HP canopy with lower horizontal speed in flying. It is good for student canopys, big old and classic 7 cell canopys (driving the canopy with 20 to 50 % brake in turbulence conditions) and paragliders, but definitively it is poor and danger technique for HP or intermediate canopys, because if you decrease horizontal speed with HP canopys you have low lift and low pressure in one small lift area. When it happen you have the danger to fall of the sky like one rock same with partial insuflate canopy. With big low load canopys, the lower wing load, lower permanent pressure in all platform of the canopy and big volume can't fly to high horizontal speed, and if the big canopy flew with same speed of a small canopy it was unmade in the air. In general big canopy low load have good behavior in low speed, small canopy high load have good behavior in high speed. Here my opinions for don't collapse HP canopys: Don't make radical or brutal inputs in your canopy in all conditions Don't use canopy with bad design Don't use new canopy without technical background or recognized technical quality Don't use poor and inadequate technical pilot canopy control Don't use HP canopys high loaded when you have low technique and or low experience Keep the fast natural horizontal speed in all conditions of the HP canopys and intermediate canopys Don't driving HP canopy with brakes for lower horizontal speed in flying. Don't fly or landing to the crossed wind Don't fly or landing close to natural or artificial obstacles, elevations or other canopys Don't jump when have bad meteorological conditions Roq

In my opinion the problem is: small canopy = smal size + small weight = little inertia = easy rotation inside and out of the main bag same when inflate. The bag spin happen easily with small canopys and that is worsened by the inadequate packing process for the specifies canopy. The past good packing cannot be now. Tight rubber bands is good for canopys to 120 sq ft for example, but no for small canopys Stows with 3 " or 4" out of rubber bands was good but not for small canopys. In my opinion the small canopys need a little stows out of rubber bands and less squeeze of the ruber bands Low speed deployment worsens the spining problem Pack job is very important for attenuate or amount the problem, because if the canopy is placed to the relative wind in sluttish form or with the disorganized nose it can increase a initial small rotation of the bag and to transit quickly for some line twists. The bag usually rotates no more than a turn, the canopy when inflate makes the rest. Stows in board is good and will attenuate the problem Small pilot chute (19 " to 21 ") is good for high speed deployments but bad for low speed Some canopys worsens the problem while add jumps, another attenuate the problem. The body positions is very important the best is openning with the head a little lowers for the lines don't snag the corners of the container. sorry my bad ingles Roq

I have two Vipers last model of Winchester Tec (skydepot) One 105 and other 94 (named super viper because the trim is equal to Alpha) The canopys is like the Alpha, and have opennings, flare and landings better than stilleto The Viper glide ratio is a bit more steep to stilleto. My Vipers is for sale. If have anybody interested e-mail me. Roq

It can happen, but in my country all spark owners (models student 230, 190 and 170 that I know) they speak about very good and soft opennings. Such as I verified in test. Roq

I know and I tried the European Spark canopies. In my country there are some to fly. The Spark is similar to sabre in Aspect Ratio and Glide ratio but that I know the Spark is better than the sabre in special in opennings. The fabric of the Spark is ZP Gelvenor like the Atair canopies. Roq

The BT 50 is a ZP 9 cell semi eliptical canopy of Parachute France with AR about 2.5 and flat glide ratio. This canopy flying and landing good but are prone for hard opennings. If you will to jump with camera the BT don't is good choice in my opinion Roq

The cobra canopy is a square platform of 9 cell, flying and sizes similar to sabre, manufactured by Atair and sold in the past by Winchester Tecnologies - Sky DEpot in USA with sales of the canopys Alpha Roq

I think the problem is only with small size and weight canopys, because the low mass and inertia forces the ocasional bag twist before the canopy deployment. With the stows the bag has lateral swinging but doesn't rotate with easiness I think. Roq

D-bags without stows. I don't think good idea for low weigh canopys because I had tried it in my small HP canopy (85 sq ft) and have a big unrecoverable line twist in second jump with it, that forced me to cut-away (also however because I loosened one toggle when i tried to clear the twists), the first with it canopy model and size in more 400 jumps. Roq

Here my opinions for don't collapse HP canopys: Don't make radical or brutal inputs in your canopy in all conditions Don't use canopy with bad design Don't use new canopy without technical background or recognized technical quality Don't use poor and inadequate technical pilot canopy control Don't use HP canopys high loaded when you have low technique and or low experience Keep the fast natural horizontal speed in all conditions of the HP canopys and intermediate canopys Don't driving HP canopy with brakes for lower horizontal speed in flying. Don't fly or landing to the crossed wind Don't fly or landing close to natural or artificial obstacles, elevations or other canopys Don't jump when have bad meteorological conditions Roq

But remember. The 707 have: high wing load, high speed flying and landing, Big mass The cessna 172 have: Low wing load, Low speed flying and landing, Lower mass In gross analogy the 707 flying more close to HP canopy than big canopy In my opinion the best gross comparison is: Big canopys: lower loads, lower mass and lower speed flying and landings as like a Antonov AN2. Small Hp canopys: high load, lower mass, high speeds flying and landings as like a style competition planes like a Sukoy or Pits Roq

I think the big canopy is less danger for turbulence conditions, because lower speed in all conditions of the big canopys, and also the big canopy is better if the pilot have less experience. But I think the um HP canopy is better for strong winds and turbulence conditions when driven for a good and experienced pilot and if the canopy is good and reliable. I jump in demo jumps for tight places with accuracy Parafoil 252 light loaded and have no problems with turbulence conditions but I have problems with strong winds because the parafoil don't move forward. With my atair HP canopys 75, 85 and 120 I don't have problems with strong winds and turbulences. In my opinion the reasons because the HP canopys is more danger in turbulence conditions is: Bad design of the canopy Bad pilot control canopy technique and experience Fast natural speed in all conditions of the HP canopys Driving the HP canopy with lower horizontal speed in flying. It is good for student canopys and old and classic 7 cell canopys (driving the canopy with 20 to 50 % brake in turbulence conditions) but definitively it is poor and danger technique for HP or intermediate canopys. Roq

I think the problem is the neutral of attack angle in outside cells when in full flight or with front risers input, by long brake lines and a bit more incidence angle in outside cells, for to make less drag in HP canopys. When it happen the outside cells as free and they tremble because the induction generated for the induced vortexes in outside for inside and bottom for top of the canopy. Roq