jmfreefly

I have been in touch with Jo wrt/ Beta program, and latest word I received was that Airtec has threatened a lawsuit against the mfg of the cutter (I gather that makes cutters for both ?? Airtec and AAD). Jo said that units wont ship to the US until that gets sorted out (possibly months). Quite disappointing.

I met Rob at CSS 3(?) years ago during their Easter boogie, while he was travelling with Jari and Lyle Presse. He took me on my first birdman jump, and got me hooked on them -- only to buy a suit a year later. I found out after the jump, after a few beers around the bonfire, that I was his first student. Blue Skies j

My experience: Hand tacking through the SLink doesnt work as well as hand tacking the riser edges together. This allows the tab to freefloat, but still stay trapped. I have mine tacked so I -CAN- get it out (with a little work). I also have Precision's soft links, with the ring. this is kind of nice, as you can put one tack through the ring, allowing it to freefloat. I still like SLinks better though.

Few points of interest: There -is- a difference between the pc 101 (or the pc9 or the pc5) and the pc 120 (and the 110, and 100) in both # of scan lines, and picture quality. CCDs are different sizes (although the 101 has a bigger CCD than the pc9s and 5s I think), but more importantly, the lenses are different sizes. The smaller the lens, the harder (or more costly) it is to grind it to exceptional accuracy. The 101,9, and 5s all use 30mm threads. Throw a wide angle on there, and you have 2 lenses that are smaller, and therefore, harder to get top notch quality out of. I have a PC100, which I love. It has all the controls outside (no need to open the video screen and wear down your battery more by powering the LCD), 37mm lens. I never end up using the still capabilties in the camera (If I need a -real- still picture, I grab my 35mm camera, or my digital still camera), so things like 'flash' on the 110 and 120 are useless to me. If I was doing freefly only, I might consider a PC9/110. But, video quality would suffer. If you saw footage from both back to back, you would be able to tell which is which instantly. One other thing to throw in the mix - PC115. This seems to be only sold overseas, but the apparently do make a NTSC version. It is basically a minor upgrade to the 110, and doesnt have all the Bluetooth baloney in it. I love the Bluetooth concept, but it isn't really there yet, IMHO. Besides, if I need crap off my camera, I do it at home.

I have used both ULead's Video Studio and Media Studio Pro products. Video studio is a bit too kindergarden for my tastes. Media Studio pro is actually pretty nice. It is fairly intuitive, except for getting used to ripple inserts/etc. (it is often an obstacle in any NLE). Renders do take forever though. However, the kicker was that slo-motion through the NLE looked like complete crap. I recently went on the hunt for a better NLE or NLE/board combination to allow me to do our DZs Xmas video faster. Was looking at Pinnacle Pro-One (using Adobe Premier) and Matrox R.100 (using Adobe Premier). Both were looking good, and then I stumbled on to AVID's products. Their Xpress DV 3.5 software is what I ended up going with. If you are a student, you can get it for like $600 bucks, instead of $2500. Truthfully, it is worth $2500. AVID is a software only solution (no board), so as you bump up your horsepower on your computer, it runs faster. Oh yeah, did I mention it runs on both XP and a Mac? It does most editing (preview) real-time, but you will still have to render for a DV stream. However, there are only a few boards than can do any real time DV stream. (Oh, slo-mo on AVID is A-MAZING)

I just had a similar discussion with a few people at our DZ about this, and this is what I told them. 1) I started off with using a Kenko (Hi-Res) .5 lens (KGW-05 Hi) ($49) for Tandem work. I was also using it for videoing RW, but I was almost always missing a bit on exit (we jump a king air). 2) For freeflying, I bought a Kenko (Hi-Res) .42. (KUW-042 Hi) ($88) It is -huge-, and somewhat heavy. Huge is downside -- I had one ripped off during a FF collision. Would a different lens have survived? Maybe. Max's .3 lens would have, but probably no others. That being said, the hi res .42 is a great lens. It has very -very- little barrel distortion (especially when compared with the .43 consumer lens which has barrel distortion and some vingetting). Truthfully, I use the .42 for everything now, even Tandems. I fly myself right up in the mix, so I get full frame video without any problem. A .5 lens does do a better job at representing distances more accurately. I use .42 for videoing RW too, you just need some good wings, good flying, and fly a bit less 'over the top'. Also, there is less issue with missing exit grips. BTW, call these guys if you want good prices on Kenko lenses.I bought 2 lenses and some photographic filters from them, and they have great service (no internet ordering though). http://www.2filter.com/kenko/Kenkodigital.html FYI, I have 750 jumps, about 400 of them tandem/RW video.

Hmm.. Let me see if I can identify them. 1) The patch is in the center, not to the side of the middle seam. Not a functional difference, but one I noticed right away. 2) The brake line cascade is different I beleive (I would have to look at them side by side to verify). I just remembering rigging the canopy up and saying to myself "Hmm.. this is different I think". Dont quote me on this. 3) The brake line looks bigger (although it may just be the tension put on my older one that makes it look smaller). 4) The slider drawstrings are different. The channels are separate webbing, versus being a tunnel formed by double layered zp. The newer (or maybe just European) slider is a better configuration functionality-wise. However, it has two white stripes (the webbing) where the other is a solid color. 4) The biggest difference I see (which looks to be functional, yet I can't tell exactly how) is how the outside lines connect to the stabilizer. My earlier canopy has the line sewn directly to the stabilizer material. The newer one has a thin piece of webbing sewn to the stabilizer, and then the line sewn to the webbing a tiny bit below the edge of the stabilizer. It seems that this shift in where this attaches would affect the vortexing on the trailing edge under load. Then again, I would need to try to compare true distances to determine if the 'pivot point' is different. Oh yeah, on my 'black listed' canopy, two of the lines were swapped on the links when I got it from Square 1. I am glad I checked it when rigging it on risers. :)

Yes, this is a similar fear (somewhat) that I have. Not that it will sink Icarus, but that they will drop the crossfire and come out with some other (very similar) canopy.. Then my 2 crossfires are worth much less. Heck, what do I really care.. I love this canopy. I just received my custom 115 and I do notice a few changes. Not sure whether it is just a European thing, or a real mod across the board. The ultimate 'good will' gesture in my mind is to replace the canopies on their 'fix' list, but I am sure that will never happen. Then no one can claim (later) that they were hurt under a bad canopy. I guess they can still claim that their canopy should have been on the 'fix' list and wasnt. I wish I knew where these canopies were mfg. Not Europe, but wondering if it is the US, or NZ.

I have one of the Crossfire's on the Annex 1 list, and I have been talking with Icarus wrt/ sending my canopy back. They have been pretty good to deal with. I have yet to actually send my canopy back, since they are claiming up to 3 week turnaround. However, my concern is that I have a 'Black listed' canopy now. I bought it in April for $1450, and I doubt I could get half of that if I tried to sell it now. Canopies with big 'REPAIRED -- WONT KILL YOU' tags on them dont sell well. The heard the DZO at a neighboring DZ was selling an affected crossfire (before repair) for 1/2 price -- no jumps on it. Anybody else have similar concerns?

One of the things to consider about jumping a cross braced canopy at a lower wing loading is that you are paying money for things you dont use. (In your case it is a shared canopy, so it may not apply). The cross bracing is used to help the canopy from deforming at high Gs (quick turns under high loading). If you dont a) load it and b) fly it with authority, you wont see any of those benefits from the crossbracing. i.e. you pay a lot of money (and suffer pack volume) for 'features' you dont use. Crossbracing also often comes hand in hand with smaller airfoil cross-sections (i.e. designs with less lift and consequently less drag). This is to ensure there is enough speed for the speed hungry. To generate lift, you need speed on these canopies (lift goes up non-linearly with speed). So, the need to be flown with some speed to generate good lift.