Sobakin

I just make 3 jumps with Skipper EVO-95 loaded 1.85. It swoops absolutely great for it's class.

Flying Ody EVO-70 loaded 2.55 and it flies and controls excellent, openings also good soft but not too long (I am cameraflyer), awesome speed building capability. Before made 200 jumps on 75 loaded 2.3 and it was very good too. Don't even want to try to load Katana the same. You may find my post about this canopy with video included.

Recent jump with Odyssey EVO-70 after reline with HMA-600 (initially was installed orange Vectran-300 which lasts too short especially with terminal openings which I only do jumping mostly tandem camera and AFF). Didn't notice almost any difference.

Hi! I did some jumps with 95 size @1.8 wingload and liked it, but at such loads where is not big difference in capabilities between EVO and non-evo. At loads around 1.8 previous model of Odyssey canopy is really great and as transition canopy too. Highly loaded Odyssey EVO is in x-braced class canopy (I like it more than Velo) thanks to more elliptical "Schumann" planform and V-Ribs, so I think real sense of EVO is at w/l 2.0+, but it will fly great at loads from 1.6 (the inlets is not too small and inner pressure and stability I think even better than non-evo at same loads), but, again, at low loads non-evo is good enough and has a bit smaller pack volume, so any choice will be great

Done about 30 jumps on 70 size and very happy with it!

Fricrion is a linear function of pressure, higher contact area = lower pressure. So if fricrion coefficient of material is the same, the total friction force will be the same on thin and thick lines.

New canopy (this is 3rd jump on it) packed by myself Opened relatively fast, but absolutely not hard.

Yesterday I've done one testjump with new size, smallest in lineup - 70 sq.ft. Loaded at 2.5 it flies great without any symptoms of overloading: Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JR0bgu-76s Photo: http://www.dropzone.com/images/photos/assets/4/635094-largest_7604-1543174111.jpg

Two 450° swoops from last weekend with Odyssey EVO-75: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kUy4cIc7I4

Ok, I know that competition ultra HP in last decade shifted to much higher performance level, but Velo/VX/JVX 10 years ago was ultra-HP for sure, maybe You're right about nowadays, but I still consider them (as all other x-braced) as ultra-HP, maybe I'm wrong, it depends of point of view and is a question of terminology. As for me there are ultra-HP canopies which performance level is higher than non-xbraced elliptical HP canopies and in last years are next level competition-class (Petra etc). Maybe we'd call entry-level x-braces as "x-braced HP class" if You don't like word "ultra" for them? :)

Ok, what is ultra-HP? In my opinion it's capability of keeping good speed-building and flying characteristics under wingloaging far beyond 2.0 with good control and feedback and it's all about new Odyssey EVO. If Velocity or Icarus FX/VX despite it's obsolete now is in ultra-HP class, why Odyssey EVO which performs at least not worse and for sure outperforms any non-xbraced canopies can't be in ultra-HP? In fact it's definitely ultra-HP canopy with only alternative ribs system and tuned for more miltipurpose usage than competition-class ultra-HP, so it recovers shorter than uncompromising competition swoop-tuned Scirocco, but it can built a lot of speed and swoops really far too. It's for filling the hole between modern HP-class and competition ultra-HP and for replacement of old design's 7-cell x-braced canopies, also it's excellent as first ultra-HP canopy. Because nose is not so closed, air pressure in canopy maintains high enough even at relatively low wingloads like 1.5-1.6 making canopy still very rigid and fun to fly, but it's full potential definitely starts to open at wingloads beyond 2.0, and identifies this canopy as ultra-HP for sure. I've done about 1200 jumps on Scirocco-72 @2.4-2.5 and now I don't want to change Odyssey EVO for it back for everyday work jumps because Odyssey EVO suits this much better and is still very-very fun to fly. But waiting for Scirocco EVO... :)

Planform view: http://www.dropzone.com/images/photos/assets/8/634128-work-7385-1529323381.jpg

They are available now, going to full production about last two weeks. There are not only HP/ultraHP Odyssey EVO, but full EVO line with Magellan EVO (9-cell less elliptical) and 7-cell Skipper EVO all with V-Ribs, and now they are working on new comp-class Scirocco EVO machine. You need to find nearest Skylark dealer and ask him about demo, I don't know are there demo canopies now near You, but I know that demo program for EVO line exists and they are producing now many canopies for demo.

Tail miniribs spaced agsainst top skin V-Ribs, top skin divided to 26 chambers, bottom to 18. At the tail V-Ribs can't work because of very thin space, so it transforms to tail miniribs. I see no any problem in seeing like miniribs not equally spacing, really it spacing equally if not count a stitch between cells where V-Ribs ends and miniribs starts. Stabilizers are non-inflatable, from designer's answers I understand that in this configuration is better to stay it classic and not to spend inflatable cells for not building lift but just for stretching. It flies absolutely awesome even in my non-pro-swooper's hands: https://youtu.be/lrRigtxtkq0

The new Skylark's Odyssey EVO would definitely be the winner :) It's not crossbraced in common sence (like tri-cell), but it's ribs design not the same as another non-crossbraced canopies, it has V-Ribs - two V-aligned ribs instead of one power rib, so top skin count 26 cells instead of 18 and whe whole wing much cleaner and smoother, and the canopy's rigidity and performance exceeds some 7-cell classic crossbraces, but has a bit less pack volume and cost, modern planform and trim. Canopy love and can normally handle high wingloads (I fly Odyssey EVO-75 @2.3 for everyday work jumps and it's not the limit). Some info here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4887475

Mitsubishi used it earlier in Lancer model line.

A5100 + 16mm lens view angle is about as gopro in medium angle or a bit narrower than gopro's "linear" (fisheye corrected) with stabilization. I use Sony NEX6 + 16mm SEL16F28 lens and Sony AS200V with steadyshot on (the similar angle as gopro in medium), pictures are similar in angle, but Sony 16mm lens has no fisheye effect and it don't support PDAF, only contrast autofocus, which is slower, so I use manual focus and aperture priority. Keep in mind that video and photo frame aspects are a bit different: 16:9 vs 3:2

Yes, it's too low wingload for Mamba. Low wingload means low speed and low air pressure inside canopy, leading to low stability in turbulence, canopy will not fly as designed. Why Mamba, and, for example, not a Pilot - good canopy for such wingload? I see no any sense flying HP elliptical canopies underloaded.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4887475

Now I have about 40 jumps with Odyssey from Skylark's brand new EVO line. The key of EVO line is Power V-Ribs, which in fact made 9-cell wing smooth and rigid at least as 7-cel standard "tri-cell" crossbraced canopies. So Odyssey EVO and original Odyssey has in common only name, EVO version is step up to ultra-HP class with high wingloads. New Odyssey EVO likes high wingloads, I jump with 75 size loaded 2.3 and I feel what it can be loaded even more for everyday jumps. Also did some jumps with 95 size @1.8, and canopy was very rigid and responsive too. Recommended wingloads 1.6 - 2.5. It opens soft, onheading but not too long, without high altitude loss. Compared to Scirocco recovery arc is not so long, but these wings have absolutely excellent glide capabilities. Soft front risers, strong but very responsible rears, very powerful flare. Now I love this parachute very much even after 1200 jumps witn my Scirocco-72 because it better suits everyday work or fun jumps and flying it is absolute fun and confidence. I'm not a pro swooper, just camera flyer. And here some video from last weekend with Odyssey EVO-75 @2.3: https://youtu.be/lrRigtxtkq0 Photo of 75 (left) and 95 (right)