ibellis

Our first batch of Visions are shipping this coming week, so those of you that placed your orders early and have been anxiously waiting, should start to see them arrive in the next 5-7 days. Enjoy. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corp.

All of our skydiving canopies are manufactured in S. Africa at Aerodyne Systems (formerly PISA). This has been the location where all of our Triathlons and DIablos have been manufactured for many years. Our Mauritian facility is dedicated to paraglider production at this time. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Thanks for posting your impressions of the PIlot. I always enjoy hearing jumper's feedback on our products. The overall feedback on the Pilot has been incredibly positive and we are very pleased. As much as we are confident upon completion of a development project like the Pilot, Vision, Amax, etc., the most important thing is the customer's feedback once they are out being jumped. I am confident our Vision and Amax will also be well received. Those that got their orders in early for Visions should start to see them arrive next week and early Amax orders should begin shipping in two to three weeks. Enjoy. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Based upon some of the comments in your post, I must say that we would never have innovation if we were content to maintain the "status quo" in equipment. We would not have zero p fabric (since F111 works as proven by countless jumps), ram air reserves (since rounds work fine as proven by countless jumps), 3-ring releases (since Capewells work), etc. etc. Equipment and technology evolves, we can choose to stay with existing technology or move forward, but to say we should be "satisfied" with what we have because it is "good enough" is not our outlook at Aerodyne along with several others in our industry. I believe our sport and skydivers in general benefit from a very different attitude by some manufacturers. The desire to improve, to never be content. To research, develop and test new technology. I am glad we have people who share this sentiment with those of us at Aerodyne that strive to raise the bar a little higher where we can. Having said that, the simple fact is that the physics behind the miniforce system are well understood. Anyone that says they have not heard of incidents where jumpers could not cut away their main canopy, have not been listening. Whether the reasons for this are cable "suck through", high "g-loads", twisted risers, dirty cables/housings, etc, etc. no one is certain. Yet we now see most container manufacturers including some type of "anti twist" housing for the cutaway cable, even though it has never been proven that riser twist has been a causative factor. Similarly, it is our opinion at Aerodyne, that if a system that reduces force at the riser loop can be offered to skydivers with no decrease in strength or reliability and if this system can be offered at virtually no cost to the customer, then why not offer it? Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, whether they believe the miniforce system, the Skyhook, the mini 3-ring, type 17 risers, single point releases, hand deployed pilot chutes, zero p canopies, ram air reserves. etc. are good or bad, necessary or not, benefits, improvements, etc. I for one will have them on my rig because if I can have a system that provides an increased measure of safety, without "costing" anything in terms of functionality or cost, I will have it and I believe many others feel the same. The decision is ultimately the customers. I am confident that skydivers have historically been individuals who are not content to settle for what has come before, but have proven time and time again to embrace new or improved technology when it offers an advantage in safety, performance, etc. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

The things I read sometimes...well anyway. Here is the story from the horse's mouth...did I just call myself a horse? Fact one, the compounds used by Gelvenor (former Tri material) and Performance Textiles are similar (silicone based) compounds. There is a slight difference in composition accounting for the tactile qualities, but nothing that makes one more "toxic" than another. Fact two, the cost of Gelvenor fabric is actually less than most of their competition not more, so we increased our cost to switch fabrics. Why then did we do it? Well the short answer is longevity. The Gelvenor fabric was developed to provide a fabric that was zero porosity but less slipery than others then on the market. While this fabric will maintain these characteristics for more jumps than most people will put on their canopies, the fabric we have switched to will last even longer. That was the reason for our switch, plain and simple. If Gelvenor, Performance Textiles or any other company come up with a superior fabric in some regard, we will test and evaluate it as well. If we find it to offer some measure of improvement we will use it. We want to use only the best raw materials in all of our products. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Unfortunately, Lisa is right on in her assessment. For years I have been trying to convince people to demo the resereve they have or are considering but alas, it has been a very uphill battle. I also agree with Ray's comment regarding strength vs. flight and landing characteristics. One is not much good without the other (imho). Of course we designed the Smart with both of these issues in mind. We have received very nice feedback from people outside of the company that have jumped them. We are considering setting up some Smarts as mains and circulating them around to our distributors. This would give people an opportunity to try one if they go out and visit one of our distributors and not require our distributors to invest in them, since as Lisa said, they would rather invest in items that will actually get jumped often. I am a little cynical in terms of the numbers of people who would actually take advantage of the opportunity, but perhaps it is worth a try? What do you think Lisa? Of course right now we just have to catch up with orders first. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Well I have to thank most of you for pointing out the qualities of the Smart reserve. I will correct a few misconceptions however. It is not a Tempo. While some of the same people were involved in the R&D of our new reserve, there were other people like myself and Michel Auvray (Techno designer) that put in a great deal of work. One of the advantages we have is a very deep worldwide knowledge pool to draw from when it comes to designing equipment. The airfoil, construction, trim, etc. are all unique to the Smart (in particular, the reinforcement we are using at the trailing edge, as well as the leading edge spanwise along the A-line attachment points) We are receiving orders faster than we can build them right now, so I am sure several customers out there could chime in with their rationale for the purchase of a Smart. They are qualified under TSO C23d which means (heavy weights and high speeds) of course they were tested far beyond any FAA requirements as those are minimums. I am very familiar with other manufacturer's testing programs and can honestly say Aerodyne's is at the very least equal to and in many cases more comprehensive than any other manufacturer out there. There are many good canopies out there. My friends at other manufacturers make many good products. Some customers want the comfort of knowing they are buying a product that was designed many years ago and has stood the "test of time". while others want to avail themselves of all that has been learned about canopy design up to the present. Ultimately the choice is yours and I am confident you would be safe whether you chose a Smart or one of the others mentioned. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Some good questions. I will try to explain the reasons (in my opinion) why the type of data you describe is not generally released. Firstly, it is only in recent years that obtaining meaningful data acquisitions in flight has been technologically available in a cost effective system. As a matter of fact I was just speaking with a friend about obtaining a new GPS/guidance computer that will give us a simpler system for collecting a greater amount of flight data. I can tell you that not too long ago, we had to fly the canopy while trying to take airspeed readings and time rates of decent with stopwatches and altis. The technology is finally getting there. The data acquisition is only part of it though, as you must qualify the conditions. While Aerodyne and others have been acquiring this sort of data for some time, the conditions for acquisition become very specific. For example you would typically convert all conditions to "standard day" conditions (temperature, air density, etc.) Once you have done this, now you must look at the test pilot (suspended weight, drag on the system, etc. If you are looking at turn rate you must measure toggle deflection vs. rate of turn using a specific length riser, altitude loss, toggle force, etc. Riser inputs the same. You must do all of this measurement objectively of course. Now that we (the manufacturer) have done this, we can tell the end user exactly how this particular parachute behaved under standard day conditions with suspended weight of X (lbs/kg) using the exact set up (equipment for the tests) Question: How many pilots will fit this criteria? Answer: Probably none as some variable (probably many) will change from the test to real world use. Now I am not by any means suggesting we not provide this info anyway, but the simple fact is that, as you mentioned, the manufacturers have not even been able to standardize on measurement methods for the physical characteristics of the wing, let alone the flight standards for testing. In recent discussions with other (manufacturers) we discussed the supposition that, given the data acquisition was available to all manufacturers and standardized, some manufacturers might publish certain values while others could publish different ones, in an effort to put their own particular products in the best light. Remember in all of this we are getting into the danger of "data overload" as well. My personal experience is that most canopy pilots are not that interested in the degrees per second or bank angle generated, but more in how the canopy "feels" to fly. They really couldn't care less if we (Aerodyne) or others gave them the exact specs describing the flight data of the canopy. Our discussion of planform was a simple attempt to include an important physical characteristic of the design of the wing into the common vernacular of describing canopies and do so in an objective method that could be applied to all canopies. I guess the bottom line is that most people I have spoken to over the years (and this is thousands of jumpers) are not that "into" the details, that we as designers and manufacturers get involved with. They trust us (the manufacturers) to do our "homework", test our products and provide a diverse product line with canopies that meet the needs of each type of pilot. The fact that we would tell customers that a Vision has a 73.5% faster turn rate (hypothetical numbers) than the same sized Pilot canopy, really wouldn't make much difference since this difference is described by us in general terms and anyone inquiring knows the Vision is a much faster turning canopy than a Pilot. If we (the manufacturers) could standardize on a method and for example manufacturer X's canopy has a higher turn rate than manufacturer Y's, then manufacturer Y would come back and say theirs reaches a greater bank angle in less rotaion, etc. Which one is better? Neither really, just different, but one would feel better to some people and vice versa. I know as a manufacturer, and many of my fellow manufacturers have told me as well, that we do not want to "spew out" volumes of data, that would only serve to confuse most (not all) customers, that are already overwhelmed with the number of choices they have out there. Especially considering the fact that we could not, at this point, guarantee that all manufacturers would use the same test equipment, protocols, etc. One interesting example: for many years we (myself and others) have explained to people that the airspeed along the glidepath of a particular sized canopy, does not have much variance from model to model. That is to say that a 120 square foot model X canopy has approximately (say +/- 3mph at full glide) the same speed as 120 square foot model Y. Turn rate, decent rate, etc vary but airspeed at full glide is about the same. Most people would not believe us! Funny but absolutely true. It may get to a point in the future wher all manufacturers will agree on a standard system for providing objective data. I personally would love to see it, but I think it will be some time (IMHO) before we can get all manufacturers on board with the idea and implementation. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

Well. I'll "chime in" since we are producing canopies at each end of the performance spectrum (student to high performance) in both disciplines (skydiving and paragliding). Firstly, while both the paraglider and the skydiving canopy are both wings constructed from "non-rigid" materials, they differ greatly in aerodynamic design, construction and characteristics. Our competition paraglider for example, has 60 cells is approximately 270 square feet and is constructed from 400 individually computer cut parts. It has an incredibly high aspect ratio and planform factor. It is trimmed to enable very high glide ratios, as well as its suspension line construction and configuration differences. Many other design characteristics are different as well. The bottom line is they are incredible wings, are extremely fun to fly, and have some amazing capabilities, (as you mentioned) but I wouldn't pack one into my rig and go try to delpoy it, or fly it on a turbulent day, or enter a speed swoop event with it, etc. etc. The skydiving canopy on the other hand uses aerodynamics and construction criteria that suit its purpose very well. High speed deployment, stability, etc. Within the scope of each discipline, there are obviously multiple designs (models) specifically tailored to certain types of pilots (students, tandem, intermediates, experts/competitors, etc.) In the final analysis they have many similarities and many differences. I can say that the design and testing process for each helps the other, i.e. we are able to test some pretty radical aerodynamics in the paragliders that you wouldn't want to get near in a skydiving canopy. What we learn from one trickles over to the other and makes them (in my opinion) that much better. They also share the use of some really nice three dimensional design tools that we use during the concept phase of development. The handling characteristics are very different whether close to the ground or at altitude, remember your wing doesn't know what altitude it is at. Certain maneuvers you could perform with a skydiving canopy might collapse a paraglider, while the speed and descent rate of a skydiving canopy during a landing might be something a paraglider pilot will never see. Instruction in paragliding focuses on take offs, piloting, weather conditions, etc (more similar to hang gliding I would guess, although I am not a hang glider pilot) while most instruction in skydiving focuses on other survival skills, outside of canopy control/flight/landing. That is not to say paragliding pilots do not get injured or are less prone to problems, but remember, the wings they are flying are more susceptible in many ways to conditions and radical response to pilot input. Wing loading is a factor to be sure but less so in paragliding since the canopies you see are never going to be as small as skydiving canopies. I hope this answers some of the questions. I am sure others can provide additional info to this topic. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

The Planform Factor (Pf) was a concept I introduced at the PIA Symposium. It is still a "work in progress" The idea was to get all manufacturers to standardize on a method for objective comparison of planform, since there has been so much marketing hype surrounding this characteristic. I know what you are thinking and yes, I take my share of the responsibility for this. The fact is that semi-elliptical, dual tapered, slighly elliptical, PRO Taper, fully elliptical, etc, etc mean nothing. A "semi-elliptical" canopy can have more taper than a "fully ellipitical" one. The Pf addresses this by quantifying the change in chord from center to wingtip along with the amount of the total wing that distributes this change (number of cells or percentage of total span). These two factors are very important in terms of defining the amount of ellipticity. There are more (leading edge taper vs. trailing edge taper for example) as well as many other characteristics trim angle, airfoil shape, etc. etc. that affect the canopy's performance characteristics. The goal for now is to establish some standards and expand from there. Eventually we may get to a point where the consumer can actually be confident they are comparing known entitites. Remember, as it stands right now, when comparing two canopies from two different manufacturers, you may not even be comparing similiar sized wings, although the labels tell you that you are. I have been in contact with George (Galloway) who has the unenviable task of trying to rewrite PIA TS-104 (measurement standards) and come up with something all manufacturers will agree to. I have suggested we include Pf along with a standard for Span, Chord, etc, so that consumers are comparing "apples to apples" or are at least aware of where some of the differences lie. The amount of taper over the entire wing (not just the end cells) does have a significant affect on flight characteristics. For example, one friend (designer from another company) agreed with me and stated that 1/2 degree of taper on the thrid cell inboard from the end cell, was enough to noticeably change the characteristics of a particular design of his we were discussing. I hope this answers some of the questions. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation

If you are in SA, the best thing to so would be to contact Aerodyne Systems. The person there is Dave Macrae. He is a great guy and I am sure he will get you any info you may need: [email protected] Lisa is correct though, it will be approx $1360 USD with most everything included (SS hardwear, articulated harness, collapsible p/c, etc., etc.) Blue skies, Ian Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corp.

We have not begun shipping the Icon yet as we are awaiting final paperwork from our friends at the FAA. Therefore the only "review" you can get is from someone inside our company that has jumped it and of course we might be slightly biased. We will hopefully be able to announce that we are taking orders shortly. Delivery time should be approximately 8 weeks once we begin full production. Blue skies, Ian Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corp.

Ray is correct. We are using Type I tape for the line attachment points of the Smart reserve. Blue skies, Ian Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corp.

I must say that I have had the same experience as Kelly, in that I have lost sales in the past based upon honesty with customers. I have actually had one customer say to me; "what's wrong with you, don't you want to sell canopies". My reponse was "sure, but not this canopy, to you, today". The reason was that this particularly pilot really didn't need a new canopy and had plenty of performance to explore in their current canopy. Let's face it; all manufacturers attempt to promote their products in the ways they feel will be successful. Aerodyne is included in this by the way folks. Product differentiation is becoming subtle. There are many good products out there today. I am a staunch believer in not trying to sell Aerodyne products by "attacking" our competitor's flaws or perceived flaws, but rather by promoting the strengths of our designs. Not all products meet the needs of all customers. Our best customer is the one that is very knowledgeable and decisive about what they would like to see. The old saying "an educated consumer is our best customer" is very true. Customers that are less experienced/knowledgeable have a more difficult time differentiating our products from others and are subject to the best "marketing" or recommendations from self-proclaimed "experts"; some of which have precious little experience or knowledge unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, there are many very knowledgeable people out there as well, but sometimes the people giving others advice makes me shudder. As to SB's, AD's, etc. I agree that they should be available to the consumer. Any manufacturer that determines there is a problem, should do what they can to make this information available. I believe many companies that have had these issues, have done so. Overall the "truth in advertising" is one thing while "marketing" is another. Most times, in my experience, manufacturers honestly feel their designs are the best. Relaying this feeling to the consumer can sometimes be difficult. Consequently you read many of the "same old lines". Since many of the characteristics used for comparison are the same, it is only natural to expect manufacturers to continue to say, "we have the best... (fill in the blank) openings, landings, swoops, etc., etc. The truth is that each design has subtle differences and the best one is the one that gives you the characteristics you are looking for, from a manufacturer you trust, at a good value, and that will have support available should you need it. If you can get all of this, then we (the manufacturers) have done our job and you (the customer) will ultimately be very happy. Blue skies, Ian

Just to set the record straight and dispel any rumors (as if that were possible). PISA is now part of Aerodyne International, which includes Aerodyne Research (US) and Aerodyne Technologies (Europe) This "hub" will operate under the name Aerodyne Systems and will be responsible for manufacturing as well as sales, customer service and support for the "Indian Ocean rim" countries. Aerodyne Research (US hub) will take over support in North and South America for all products previously manufactured and sold by PISA. This is good news for customers located in this region as you can now have a location that is geographically closer to support you. This should improve response time and raise the level of customer service (our goal). As for our new products (Amax, Vision, Pilot, Solo, Smart, etc), all are new designs. Finalization of each of these designs has involved input from our entire development team (US, Europe, and S. Africa). We all work together on these projects. Some products see a greater influence from the US part of the team, others the European part, etc. but no product has been, or will be released that has not had input from all of these elements. The idea that any of our new products are simply "repackaged" old designs, is simply untrue. We have been working on many of these designs for the past year or more and a great deal of effort has gone into their designs and testing. As a member of the design and testing team here, I can tell you that I have personally been heavily involved with each of our new designs and none are simply repackaged products. I hope this sets the "record" straight. Blue skies, Ian