colin2000

Nice to hear from a lurker! I was just paraphrasing the website, so the comparison on recovery arc is nzaero's, not mine. I am interested in the xfire3, so if you get a chance to jump one come back here and give a review. Seth Yeah, if you're reading from their site, that is the original Crossfire marketing material. I dont believe they, NZAerosports, ever updated that material when they came out with the Crossfire2. They just used the same marketing material that was written for the first one. As you can see in the description, they only use the Crossfire moniker, with the occasional "2" inserted inconsistently here and there. I'd have to check some old Para Gear ads to be for certain, but it looks exactly the same as the ads put out in 99'. In fact, Im not exactly sure how much design influence they actually had with the 2nd versions of the Crossfire or the Safire. Things got confusing when Precision stopped making Icarus branded canopies and came out with their own line of canopies back in the early 2000's. Icarus(Spain) had been producing Icarus licensed canopies, but with the advent of the SFire canopy, released in the not too distant past, Im not sure if they are even making them anymore, TBH. I haven't followed those other companies since I started flying Daedalus canopies. I could be wrong cause I dont know for certain, but to me, it seemed like Spain made the revisions to the original design. After that it was marketed as the Crossfire2, which was then sold from both locations, NZ and Spain. This is just my interpretation of the changes; I have no facts to back that up. Maybe someone at NZ's shop can elaborate on what exactly went down with the design changes or who made them. Though it made sense to me that they didn't, seeing that the design felt like a major step backwards in terms of performance and openings. It didn't feel, fly, or open like something NZAerosports would have designed, but who knows, maybe they did. I know a lot of people enjoy the Crossfire2 and the way it flies, but I dont think many Crossfire2 owners, if any at all, have ever experienced the flight/opening characteristics of the original Crossfire. People who have, usually have the same feelings I do about the change in direction the canopy line took; Geared more towards an all around vs. a swooping canopy. The design magic that put Icarus canopies on the map came from Jyro and the people in NZ. If you are going to buy anything Icarus, buy from NZAerosports. But I still cant recommend the Crossfire2 to someone looking to get into high performance canopy flight. IMO, even though i came from the Crossfire2, It's not geared towards that swooping transition path. Seeing that the Crossfire3 is for sure getting its design from the people who designed the original, maybe it will inherit some of those characteristics that made the original such a success in the first place. I hope/pray the Crossfire Extreme gets back to the glory days of when the Crossfire was known and recognized as a real player in the swooping world. It's such a shame to hear people talk about the Crossfire moniker being a canopy NOT geared towards high performance canopy flight. However, its understandable being that they aren't geared that way anymore, and there have been way more Crossfire2's bought and flown than Crossfire1's. Here's to the Crossfire1 with the B-line mod; Next to my Hybrid Leia, it's arguably the most enjoyable canopy that I have ever flown, Period!

I don't ever post hear, but this is one I felt I need to adddress because most people who speak of the xf1, usually have never flown one. As someone who has owned and put many jumps on both the original xf1(01') and the xf2(08'), that statement is completely incorrect. The xf2 is nothing like a xf1. Somehow, Icarus designed a much inferior version for their second attempt at this line of canopy. The openings got much worse, the wing dove much less, and the fun factor completely changed. The original xf1 filled that swooping transition gap that is currently missing from their lineup. It had, for its time and even now, a long recovery arch, some of the best openings you could find in ANY type of canopy, and was the perfect transition canopy into high performance xbraced wings. I for one was so disappointed in my xf2 experiences it almost drove me away from Icarus canopies all together. That's saying a lot considering in the 16 years I've been in the sport, I've only ever owned Icarus canopies. Even though I have jumped them many times, I've never owned a PD wing. Thankfully, my transition from the xf2 to my JVX and current Leia canopies have reinvigorated my love for these companies and this brand. They are returning to the Icarus of old, and I for one believe it couldn't have come soon enough. I personally don't expect the xf3 to be that much better than the xf2, maybe a little better openings and a slight increase in diving performance and flare efficiency, but nothing too dramatically different from what they are offering now, basically a refined xf2. Hopefully they will get back to the original formula with the xf Extreme that made them popular in the first place: long snively openings that open on heading and never, EVER consider malfunctioning; long recovery archs that never pull you out of a dive before you want them too; and a long, smooth, and consistent flare that has the power to take you from pullout to a dead stop even when you mess up the efficiency of your flare. Those that are looking for a swooping canopy that will help transition you into the xbraced realm, my opinion would be to wait for the latter option. Those who are coming from a Safire type wing looking to get under an all around, hassle free fully elliptical wing, the xf3 should probably be your cup of tea. It will be up to you to decide if that extra refinement is worth the markup from their current offerings. But if they get the xf Extreme right and bring back the best of the xf1, considering the current level of development they have been putting into these new designs, it's gonna be a good day for canopy pilots looking for that transitional step into the high performance world, and well worth the markup. As always YMMV, but keep in mind, I have a vast knowledge of their canopy lines that runs from the original Safire1 to their current top of the line hybrid xbrace. These are well informed/experienced opinions of a life long Icarus/Daedalus canopy pilot. Hopefully this helped inform any future purchase decisions any of you are considering. Good luck and keep it safe..

All engines are made the same. Only difference is the center engine can gimbal on two axis while the outer 8 engines gimbal in one directions. Since the engines can only throttle down to 70% they have to land in whats called a "hover slam" maneuver. Since there is too much thrust to hover and you use a lot of fuel the longer you are fighting gravity, this is the most efficient way to land the vehicle. Basically the rocket reaches the ground at a velocity of 0 m/s and shuts off the engine before it starts to ascend again. This is a lot harder to do than what Blue Origins is doing with their New Shepard vehicle. They will understand this pretty quick when they start flying their orbital vehicle. They wont be able to land a first stage by sitting there and hovering like New Shepard does now, so they will have to learn this maneuver in the future. What both companies are doing is ground breaking, but what they are doing are not equal as far as difficulty. Some perspective: SpaceX is the only private company/non nation state to ever place a vehicle in orbit and then recover it. On a side note the amount of fuel used for the 3 burn landing of CRS-8 was around 33,000kg (~73,000lbs). The more fuel you need to land, the less payload you can get to orbit. Efficiency is very key to successful orbital recovery/reuse.

There's more to it than that. This society has changed, and it seems as if people need to fill their conversation with meaningless fluff. They seem to need a simple answer to be complex, and justification that they are "ok" and "accepted". Where as a "yes" or "no", used to suffice, now a person is offended if a lengthy dialogue answering all the questions they didn't ask is not forth coming. I think the art of listening has died. It's now socially acceptable for a person to ask a question, ignore the reply and then proceed to tell the questonee what they think the answer is. +1