alan

So if you measure the pc's speed relative to the ground, since it is travelling with the jumper prior to cut away, then it would have to be decelerating relative to the ground and the jumper. Why do you choose to measure the jumpers speed relative to the ground and the PCs speed relative to the jumper? After all, Poynter did name The Parachute Manual A Technical Treatise On Aerodynamic Decelerators. There must have been a reason that Mr. Poynter did not call them accelerators. I wonder what it could have been. Certainly not relative to the ground as a result of a cutaway. It seems to accelerate away from the jumper or the jumper seems to accelerate away from the PC, but that is just the endless debate of relativity. BTW, I agree, the jumper does accelerate towards the ground after a cutaway, but the PC (and main) decelerates so quickly and does its' job before the jumper has time to do much real accelerating in the case of a Skyhook RSL System. The one thing that is common is the true point of relativity, and that is the Earth. The jumper and PC both begin and end all of their journeys at that point. I just can't understand how Mr. Poynters Manuals are referred to so much as the source of so much accurate information when he apparently got the title wrong. alan

Let me get this straight, a new wings is about $1500 list price. The $400 coupon allows one to buy that rig for 50% off, which is about $750. That brings the total cost of the rig to about $1150. My experience over the last 14 or 15 years is that most dealers or subdealers routinely offer discounts of 20%, 25%, and even 30% . 20% off $1500 is $1200. 25% off is $1125. 30% off is $1050. Seems to me, for a good shopper, the $400 coupon would at best get you an average deal. alan

Minor detail here, the jumper does not accelerate to get the reserve out of the free bag. The Freebag accelerates/deccellerates away from the jumper, depending on who/how you want to debate it with. Some guys with degrees will tell you that acceleration and deccelleration are the same thing based on relativity. Personally, I don't accelerate up to a stop sign, I deccelerate to it and accelerate away from it. Since you and the pc are travelling at the same speed at the instant of launch, and it then goes slower than you because of drag, I would argue that the pc deccelerates away from the jumper. BTW, the Skyhook is simple, efficient, and an enhancement to jumper safety. The cost is easily justfied, especially on HP mains. Free Offer or not. alan

Just something to think about. A guy that has 200 jumps and on every jump challenges himself to learn or improve on a skill and gets coaching as opposed to a guy with 800 jumps who has attempted to do nothing different than when he had 50 jumps and experience is just reactive to the various situations he has encountered. I'm using smaller brushes and more colors, you get a more accurate picture that way. alan

Cool, now try doing that while suspended under a parachute. Or better yet try doing it by manuevering the parachute you are suspended under. alan

Try packing the bridle in against the mesh and then pull out the pc by the hackey or pvc or pud or whatever. Watch what happens when the pc comes out of the BOC pouch. Notice the pc unfolding and the bridle coming out, especially as you pull it to arms length. Now imagine that bridle in the relative wind at freefall speeds. It is above the pc. OK, don't imagine anything, just watch some video of a pc deployment. Now watch some of a pc with the bridle folded into the rolled up pc. Same ....Same. Bridle bowed above the pc, using either packing method. It all happens before you can release the pc at arms length. No shit, really. I didn't design the throw out pc or any of the other truly great innovations in sky diving like the three ring release or anything, but I'm not blind either. Don't believe me, just try it and watch the vid. alan

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or argueing. You say at least two dozen manufacrurers still build rigs with the catch in the corner. I mention the rigs I am familiar with, most major manufacturers currently in the US, and point by point you seem to agree with the exception of Talons and pre 2005 Javelins. I know you worked for RI and are very familiar with the Talon, but I am an experienced senior rigger and I have 3 Talons and one Voodo sitting in front of me. DOMs range from 1996 to 2000 and I used to own two other Talons of the '87 to '89 vintage. None of them have even the slightest catch and that includes the 4 I am looking at right now. Nothing that in my wildest dreams that could even remotely be compared to the catch on the Wings that I had the customer send back to the manufacturer. And if the catch was on the Wings as you say because that is the way their predecessors did it, then why wasn't it on the Wings versions without the cut in lats? I don't have any Javs in front of me right now so I won't call BS on you for them, but I'll check at the DZ next time over. alan

???? But the prior version of the Wings that did not have the cut in lats wasn't built that way. The pack tray/corner was sewn with no catch. I'm only familiar with gear made in the US. The Javelins, Vectors, Talons, Mirages, Infinities, Racers, Dolphins, and earlier Wings I've packed that were made in the last ten years didn't have a similar catch. The Icon I looked at didn't have it either, but did have the line guides. I have trouble believing it is as common place as you make it sound. As stated in a previous post, Wings has corrected it on all current rigs. alan

It has nothing to do with hip rings other than in the case of the new Wings with the cut in lats, they have the corner sewn in such a way as to create a catch. As you have pointed out, it can and has happened on other rigs already, rigs that don't have a similar catch sewn into the corner! It is mostly a packing issue, I know the old RI manuals are specific about routing the risers and lines down the sides of the main pack tray and not wrapping them under. You maybe helped write those manuals. At any rate, a rig with a "catch" sewn into that corner is seriously flawed. A SB would be nice before an incident. Just my opinion. Hee, Hee, Hee alan

Because they changed the way the corner is sewn on the rigs with the cut in lats. The corner is sewn without the "catch". However, as I stated in a previous reply to someone else, it is really a minor packing issue. It can happen on a variety of rigs, even if the corner is sewn properly, without a catch. All the mod does is remind the packer to not wrap the excess suspension around the bottom of the reserve pack tray by making it more difficult. The risers and lines should be routed down the sides of the main pack tray with the excess lines stowed in the bottom of the main pack tray. This is often an overlooked cause for line twists, off heading openings, and spinning mals. alan

Compare a Wings that does not have the lateral cuts with one that does. The way the corner is sewn with the cuts creates a "catch" that is not there on the others. It is mostly a careless packing issue. If you are in the habit of wrapping your excess lines around the bottom of the reserve pack tray instead of down the sides of the main pack tray to its' bottom, then you run an increased risk of off heading openings, line twist, spinning mals, or tearing off the reserve pack tray. alan

"Option"? They've been doing this mod for free on request because they know it is a potentially fatal design flaw. If the main suspension lines go under the "catch" on the reserve pack tray lower corners on the rigs with cut in laterals, there is a chance that they will tear the reserve pack tray off the harness on deployment. I just had a customer send a rig to them about four weeks ago. He paid the shipping there. They did the mod at no charge and paid the return shipping. alan

If you have these or get them, make sure the mod has been done to remove the catch on the bottom corners of the reserve pack tray. alan

Could not agree more. And it goes beyond just the pattern. FJC they learn BASICS like airspeed vs groundspeed, use of breaks, what a stall looks like, etc., etc.. It goes on and on. The USPA ISP has steps of canopy control in it from the first jump. Learning the fundamentlas of swooping is not the same as learning swooping. Each jumper can decide what to do with the fundamentals after they have them. If they want to go to the next level and learn swooping, then they have the basic fundamentals and can learn in a better prepared environment. If they don't want to learn to swoop, more power to them, they still have the basic fundamentals that will make them a better and safer canopy pilot in general. There are too many canopy "pilots" out there with hundreds of jumps that don't have a clue as to how and why the canopy flies and responds to various inputs the way it does. alan

"get stable" before reserve deployment after a cutaway? If anyone else had come on here and posted a comment like this they would be all over it like stink on shit! Do a little search. Basics from student days. Read the SIM. Arch then pull. Nothing about getting stable first. Quite the opposite actually, don't waste the time and altitude getting stable, it is more important to get the reserve over your head. You may spend the rest of your life "getting stable". Most of the riggers posting here have for years been saying that the reserve system is designed to be deployed while unstable and that it results in quicker deployment, ie the reserve pc is not in the burble and launches quicker. Your comment might be restated from: "Without the Skyhook, you must "get stable" and align your body into the relative wind ......." to something like this. With the Skyhook you have no need to worry about getting stable before deploying the reserve and risking entanglement...... There is a big difference. People rightfully look up to you here. Be careful of what you say and how you say, your word is accepted as gospel here. Bill, I have packed your Skyhook sytem. I have seen it in action. The last time I recommended it to a new jumper asking for rig advice was just this past Sunday. alan

airborne82nd Personal Information Real Name: No name entered. Email: No email entered. Jump Profile Home DZ: No home dropzone entered. Your replies, experience, opinions and advice carry exactly the same weight as your profile. alan

Most of them have a considerable amount of training and experience do do it safely and benefit from the mistakes of others and the research done into how to dive in an overhead environment more safely. Just read not to long ago of a body recovery in a cave. It was a diver not certified for the type of dive. Maybe had an attitude similar to the one you exhibit. And just how much experience do you have swooping any canopy? I'll put mine up against yours here again. No one is ever forced to try a low hook turn to learn to swoop. You learn by doing straight-in approaches and brakes in a normal pattern, at least if you are learning from a competent Instructor with swooping ability. Then you progress to double front risers on final in a normal pattern. When that skill is mastered, you do some shallow combination toggle/ front riser turns onto final, working up to a nice neat 45 degree turn onto final using a 45 toggle turn from base to finish with a 45 front riser on to final. Eventually as each level is mastered, you progres to doing a 90 degree front riser turn to final. Then you work up to your level of comfort and skill. By taking this approach, there is no need to toggle whip or hook and that simply takes the recovery arc out of the mix. It is what it is for the canopy you are jumping. When you jump a new canopy, you start from scratch and learn the new canopy and adjust the sight picture to what you learn is appropriate for the new canopy based on its recovery arc and what you learned about it by experimenting up high and trying a few straight in approaches. Of course it doesn't hurt to have a more than basic understanding of the principles and aerodynamics involved. G forces in a turn and in the recovery arc and how they affect the forces acting on the airfoil including the wing loading, for example. alan

You may think you are but at best, your advice is questionable. I've got well over 2000 jumps and have been an Instructor for nearly as long as you have been jumping, including the military experience. I've had a single year in which I made more jumps than you have in your entire career. I've also jumped a 160 Tri and a 75 Onyx and an 89 X-VX and a Manta and a few dozen others in between. At 160# he has an exit qweight of about 190#. He stated he is still a student with only 20 jumps. At 190# his W/L on the 175 is nearly 1.1 to 1. That is at best OK, it is not "good" as you put it. His Instructors are the best people to make that judgement. Again, if he weighs 160# as stated previously that puts his W/L on the Tri at nearly 1.2. Most responsible Instructors that i know would say that is questionable at best, his skills would be the deciding factor. As a self proclaimed student with 20 jumps, his skills would be questionable again at best. Yes, you are correct in that it will give him good drive in the winds, mostly likely winds that as a student he should not be jumping in. Landing it, "no problem"? Have you even seen him land anything? I wouls again have to say questionable at best. At 20 jumps I doubt he would have the skills to handle emergency or panic situations with that canopy. By that I mean landing off, maybe getting cut off by another jumper, maybe confused with the windsock and trying a last second turn into the wind, or maybe a downwind landing.....the list goes on. You "hold" into the wind. You "run" with the wind. What you are trying to say but don't have the training and experience to say it correctly is that on a long spot he can run with the wind in brakes or on rear risers and get and get back from a long upwind spot. What makes your advice questionable is the awkward manner in which it is stated. No sin in that, but it reflects on your credibility as a whole. Fair enough. The Tri is a good canopy. Generally speaking though a 9 cell will have a higher aspect ratio and most of the modern 9 cells glide better than the Tri simply because a higher aspect ratio gives the wing a little more effiency. That is one reason why gliders have high aspect ratios. you should be happy with your Tri, but a similar sized Safire (or any similar canopy) would do what you like about your Tri and do it better. This is simply a comment and as such is fair enough. It lends to your experience. Again, this is just a comment and opinion. Fair enough. At 195#, if that is your weight w/o gear then your wing loading at exit weight would be near 1.7. At your total number of jumps and level of currency that puts you up in the expert range. I haven't seen you jump, you may be that good, but with what I've seen here, that is at best questionable. I can see why you don't like the speed. Openings can vary from canopy to canopy as you have noted. It has little to with the size of the canopy but your observation is fair enough. I'm not sire of what value it is to the original poster other than he is asking about a 160. Just because your 170 opens better than the 160 you jumped, that is very little reason for him to believe it will have any bearing on the openings he will experience. His stability on opening at 20 jumps will play a role, as will packing technique, and the over all trim and construction of that particular canopy. I'm not sire that at 20 jumps he will have the experience to handle the crisper flare. He needs something that is forgiving of little mistakes. You are entitled to think he is too light for the 160. I'll put my experience up against yours though and say that if he is jumping in winds that are appropriate for a 20 jump student, then he will have sufficient drive. Good motivation to stay on the ground or in the plane when you should. That "better" speed that you think is so good for him will also increase the severity of his injuries when he uses poor judgement or makes a mistake close the ground. At 20 jumps, I think it is a good bet he will be making a few mistakes while he gains experience over the next couple of hundred jumps. Again, on that point, I'll put my experience up against yours any day. You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is buy a 190 now and after a 100 or more jumps try the 175 then try the 160 and see. Again, his Instuctors can give better advice than me. I will say that I have seen a trend lately that is disturbing. People seem to think if they get canopy coaching or take a Scott Miller type course, that they now have the skills to downsize more rapidly. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. How well did they do in the course is an important factor. How well do they understand the of principles of flight and aerodynamics airfoils? Do they just know the mechanics from rote learning? Reasons why at 20 jumps this is not a "good" choice. Maybe OK , but not good. Yup, it requires good technique on no wind days. Technique that probably hasn't had a chance to be developed at 20 jumps. He'll do a number of face plants that he wouldn't do on a larger canopy. On the surface this is good advice. You seem to have overlooked the fact that he has 20 jumps in giving it though, or else you just have't the experience with students to know that they don't usually do anything stupid or hook turns on purpose. They do them in a panic when something unexpected happens. And with only 20 jumps of experience, a lot of unexpected things can happen. Great advice to practice flat and braked turns though. No arguement there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean winds less than 15 mph when you say kind of windy. Why run or slide when on a 190 in no wind you can do tip toe soft landings and learn good technique? Oh ya, that drive into the wind thing. I'm not buying that. It is not a good trade off. Pretty good advice, why can't he do this on a 190? Oh ya, the drive thing again. Just is not a good trade off. Again, pretty fair advice that will work just as well on a 190. Pick up your feet to slide? You mean, don't slide on your feet, but slide on your butt? If that's it, then OK. Ummm, how much wear and tear does that put on the harness/container and jumpsuit? I only ask that because I know how often this happens even under the bigger canopies like the 190 with 20 to 50 jump newbies. As a rigger, I know it is generaly not a good idea to put any more wear ona rig than you have to. As far as being a hypocrite (I know you were not addressing me personally but it colored your posts), I did my student jumps on a 288 Manta. At about 25 or 30 jumps and 200# exit weight I went to a 220 Cruislite. A hundred jumps on that and then a 170 Sabre. After about 50 jumps on the Sabre, I would do occassional jumps on a 150 Sabre and 160 Tri. At about 600 jumps, I demo'd a 135 Stiletto and 136 Jedi. Bought the Jedi. Since then I have jumped nearly every major canopy currently in use in the US, big and small including a few tandem canopies. I even hold a PRO rating. I currently have an X-VX 89 with maybe 800 to a thousand jumps on it and am now about 225# out the door. My advice to the original poster is to put very little weight on yours. alan

Dave, Hi and low are relative terms and each of our perceptions will vary. What I may term as high may seem low to you because our experiences are different. At this point a pitfal you may encounter is to try and over analyze each jump. Try to look at the bigger picture and see trends over several jumps, bearing in mind that wind conditions and other factors may vary form jump to jump. Sometimes those variations may be small and insignificant, sometimes they will have a big impact on your perception of what is happening. An example would be the debates here on how much altitude you loose on a turn to approach in relatively high wind as opposed to no wind. Some people will argue that they have to start their turns higher on windy days because they loose more altitude in the turn because of the wind. Others will argue the opposite. The truth is, the canopy's flight is not changed by the wind, just its' track across the ground and the jumpers perception of how that affects altitude and glide path. The canopy does not feel wind, it does feel turbulence. But, enough of that, I think you see my point. So, are you too high or too low in the video. You perceived yourself as too high. I would encourage you to try this. When a more experienced jumper offers feedback on what he or she saw, cautiously give them the benefit of the doubt and instead of debating it with them, give it a try. Trust a little bit. That means make small corrections over several jumps. Evaluate and see if their assessment was correct and helped you improve. I'm not saying that to be critical of you because your question isn't arguementative, it's cautious. That is a good thing. I'm just saying that to go out and give it a few tries is sometimes more productive than focusing too much attention on one piece of video. I hope that makes sense to you and doesn't come off as being critical. A little story here. A few years back I was giving some coaching to a friend on freefall. I had become his mentor and was investing a great deal of time and money in helping him learn Ff skills. We hit a big hurdle at 360 center point turns while falling straight down. Nothing I did worked. I tried every teaching trick I had in my book. No matter what we said, did, tried or practiced, he always made the turn in an arc around his feet or knees. Finally after many jumps and many $$$ out of my pocket for my jump tickets, I said "I have to give up, I just don't know what else I can do to teach you this. I'm out of tricks. You will need to find some one better than me to get you past this." He then admitted that he had been saying one thing and doing another. He listened intently to my coaching, and said yes, I'll try that. Time and time again and yet the same thing over and over. He finally admitted that he wasn't trying to do what I had been telling him, that he was afraid he would hit me in the head with his feet as he made the turn the way I wanted him to, so he was doing it his way!!! He let his perceptions interfere with his trust in my abilities and had not been honest with me. That nearly ended our friendship and it did end my mentor relationship. I guess if he had been paying for all of that coaching, he would have been less inclined to be worried about the coach and placed more value on the advice. Maybe that's why people like Scott Miller are so popular and successful, they ask to be paid for their expertise and it stands to reason that their advice is better because you have to pay for it. You know the addage, You get what you pay for. That is not meant as a slam on Scott or the jumpers who make money by getting paid for their expertise. It is more of a comment on the type of jumper we now have in the sport. Things have changed. I grew up at the end of the era where the older jumpers mentored the newer ones, it was the idea of giving back to the sport because someone did the same for me. Why the story? Well, you and many others here are correctly advised to get professional coaching. That is great if you have the $$ and are located where that is easy to do. You have it tough in that respect, and even tougher because you are at a DZ that doesn't appear to have experienced people to mentor you. You can learn by having fun, just jump as much as you can, and get as much out of those as you can. Have a plan for each jump, just something simple and easy so it doesn't detract from the rest of the fun. Learn a little at a time. Right now, what you are learning is a combination of "sight picture", the "sweet spot" of the flare, and efficient use of your control inputs. Basics. They will never fail you. Sight picture is just altitude.........being too high or too low. There are different ways to learn it. Look, use your eyes. Remember what you see, then evaluate how it came out, make adjustments, evaluate if they helped or not. Some people will use an alti as one tool to learn this. Some people will say that is dangerous. Still others will say use one but only certain ones that are very accurate. I say use the best tools available to you but always use your eyes and common sense. Error on the side of not hurting yourself or others. For what it is worth, I have several jumps on a Tri 210 as an experienced canopy pilot, so I have some idea of how they fly and respond. Can't remember the WL, but it was probably about 1:1. It is a good canopy, you can have a lot of fun on it and learn your basics. When you move on to a different canopy, you can take the basics with you, but you will have to learn the personality of the new canopy. It will never end. There will always be new refinements and new techniques to learn and master. I'm pretty sure you were too high, but you thought it was low due to your experience and frame of reference. Thinking you were too low, you just let go of the fronts and went to brakes before the canopy had a chance to fly and recover from the fronts. Your stab at the brakes probably had the canopy close to a dynamic stall at that point and you never realized it, you eased up on the brakes because you knew it is not good to flare from there and you wanted to get a little of the surf. By then you had sunk to the ground, running, with the brakes eased up and nearly did a faceplant when the now unloaded canopy started flying gain. The old faceplant! Man, I wish I had a jump ticket now for every one of those I have done! Again, I hope you find some of this helpful. I've been trying to stucture my replies to you in such a way that others can look at the pics and vid as well and use this as a tutorial, or supplement to their other resources. Once again, free advice over the internet, take it for what it is worth. There are many responsible people on this forum and it is well moderated. You can be pretty sure that if I was telling you anything that is blatantly dangerous out of ignorance or for some sick kind of amusement, someone would jump in and point it out. Keep posting, I don't mind helping. Mail me $50, I'll have you swooping the crap out of that Tri in just a few months. alan

Dave, I'm a no name, my credentials are in my profile. I've evaluated canopies for Brian Germain at Big Air and George Galloway at Precision. Both deemed my reports as worthy of publication. Each landing is going to be just a little different than all of the others, but you try for consistency through repetition and evaluation and correction. All I have to go by is the pics with no knowledge of conditions. My guess is low or no wind. Pic 1: Looks just fine. Pic 2: My impression is you have let up on the front risers too early/high. That is OK, you will learn this as you evaluate/correct/re-try/ re-evaluate. Smooth and easy is the key and go slow. Make small adjustments as you delay the riser release. The riser release should be fairly slow and smooth, if you just let them go, the canopy will want to level out all on its' own right away and you will be too high. Too high is better than too low. Pic 3: Again to high, you are fairly deep in brakes and bleeding off your lift. After releasing the fronts, a smooth but fairly fast "bump" of the brakes of only a few inches will pitch you under the canopy and level it out. Try less deep in the brakes but a faster "bump" and work it down a foot at a time. Again, better too high than too low. This is a very critical part of the process and probably the most difficult to learn. You just have to try and try again to find that "sweet spot" a little at a time. Pic 4: This one looks like you are pretty close to a full flair and still too high to extend your legs and touch the ground. That is where you want to be during the surf. Legs should be up and you should be flying the canopy close enough to the ground so you could extend your legs and touch it if you wanted to. You do not want to be in full brakes during the surf. After you bump them and plane out, smoothly add just enough more as you go along to maintain that altitude of your bent legs just a foot or two above the ground. Conserve your energy/speed/lift. Pic 5: This is about what you should have looked like in Pic 4 only closer to the ground! I hope that is not confusing to you. It is why you had to run out the landing. Pic 4 you were too high and too deep in the flare. Pic 5 you backed off the flare and tried to surf but most of your air speed and lift were gone, although you still had some ground speed left. Now Pic 6 comes up, meaning the ground is there now and you either didn't go back and finish the flare or there wasn't any left. Pic 6: The end result is your feet are on the ground and the canopy is now unloaded. That means it is no longer supporting your weight. That means it wants to fly again! So now here you are with your feet on the ground, running out what airspeed your canopy had left and it wants to keep going now because you just took its' load off. Milk the surf for all it is worth and when you finish, finish all the way. You should not be in deeper brakes in Pic 4 than 5. That means you are "pumping" your brakes and that is not efficient, among other things, it disturbs the laminar airflow over your airfoil and reduces the available lift and you get nothing in return for it, you don't really lose much of your forward speed. You want to loose all or most of your forward speed (ground speed) at about the same time you loose all or most of your lift and air speed. That should be when you put your feet on the ground. Know where (control input) and when (air speed) your canopy will stall! That means practice a few stalls up high and clear of other canopies and know that a stall occurs before your canopy collapses or "fortune cookies". You may want to review stall recovery from your first jump training. You want your feet on the ground just before the canopy stalls. You look like you are very close to that point in Pic 4, but well above the ground yet. You want Pic 6 to look more like Pic 4 in terms of your flare. This is as tough to learn as finding that sweet spot. I hope this is useful to you, but take it for what it is. Free advice from the internet! Good luck to you and remember, smooth control inputs are a good thing. Jerky rapid movements cost you lift. Learn to be efficient with your inputs, pumping costs you lift. alan

www.crcindustries.com http://www.crcindustries.com/crcweb/ This is just one example, you may have to look a little to find this particular brand in a store, there are many and easy to find if you would look before posting. CRC Industrial Food Grade Silicone Multi-Purpose Lubricant Lubricates, Waterproofs & Protects Colorless and Odorless Meets FDA Reg.21 CFR 178.3570 It is in a green can with a black top and red CRC label. alan

Eugene, you may very well be correct about robbing and borrowing molecules, what I remember about chemistry wouldn't fill a thimble! My comment was based on information from manufacturers and supported by Poynter's Parachute Manual. While no one advocates exposing a canopy or container to any liquids in general, Poynter says that: "Hydrocarbons are generally not injurious to nylon." alan

I agree with what Brent has posted and it is not just in gun circles that WD 40 is considered a telltale of inexperience. As far as containing petroleum distillates, yes, If I recall correctly WD 40 is kerosene with additives. In general it will not harm the canopy or container fabric as they are a petroleum product as well. But, fabrics and their treatments/coatings are evolving and that may not always be as true as it was. The main concern would be stains and the propensity to attack and retain abrasives like dust and dirt. Brent summed it up nicely. alan

I can remember doing H&Ps from a C-182 at 1800' in order to stay just under the clouds. DZO made us quit when we started turning a few points on 10 sec delays. Jump run was 100 mph, no cut. No CYPRES in any of those rigs. alan

If you send in an Icarus VX or FX for the X-mod, then you will get the proprietary integrated stabilizers and end panels with no logo on them. Upon your request, they will reapply your old labels. alan