skow

Good point. Agree Definitely agree and that was my point. However I feel quite disappointed becasue I'm not really sure if that's the current attitude of manufacturers i.e. "We seem to get as far as we will, so let's stop trying and now keep polishing the 'turd' " or that we have actually reached the very boundaries of aerodynamic performance that can be achieved by a airfoil which also needs to fit in the skydiving container and open from (sub)terminal velocity. (or also wingsuits - however with different constrains)

I had Funk1, all white for 100+ jumps, now have Funk 2 and Freak 2 (white fronts). Wouldn't say it wears faster than other colors - e.g. if I compare back side (black on Funk2, violet on Freak2) and the front side

I feel you're missing the point of half of these. WinX and Kraken are WS-specific canopies. They're made to open quickly, on heading, and pack small, whilst still giving the good longevity of a ZP/hybrid design, the performance of a modern wing, and being good enough all-rounders that you can take them on a non-WS jump without worrying about getting slammed. I dunno about Kraken (haven't jumped one), but WinX also excels at glide ratio and if it's at all possible to make it back from a long spot, WinX will get you there. You cannot have that and also expect a long recovery arc. I think you might be missing my point as well

Bringing knees forward is a 15-20 year old braking technique. It's a pizza-head-down flying of wingsuiting

I'm guessing you're measuring this based on resulting GR and your body angle? i.e. 43 degrees is ~ 1:1 GR and 21 degrees is your body angle (with respect to horizon)? If so, there's a huge variable here, which will mess everything up - i.e. wind. If you have the exact same body position, your resulting GR will differ based on direction you're flying (i.e. down or upwind). If the wind is strong, it'll differ quite a lot

As stated above, tracking suit is definitely not a good airfoil, not even close to it (for starters it's not rigid) Also most air-crafts in general aviation have some kind of engine which provides thrust. This can in no way be applied to tracking. Also I'm quite puzzled by your logic. You got some number (5 degrees) which in no way relates to tracking suit flying, and subtracted it from another one (40 degrees), which in no way relates to the first one, to obtain some result. What is the reasoning behind this? With this thinking after flying at 35 degrees, could you subtract another 5 degrees to get even better?? (rhetorical question

As you wrote later, it's the angle of attack, not the angle in relation to horizon that makes you fly. Nope. In this situation (without any magical power pushing/pulling you) you'll not be flying 0 AoA. Just because your body is turned 45 degrees in respect to the horizon, doesn't mean it's flying in that exact direction Zero AoA would be if you'd be flying head-down. Don't focus on the numbers. It's good to have some mathematical knowledge but if you get too much fixation you'll become paranoid :) . (However if you do, you could read a bit more about AoA

Judging by your questions it seems that you definitely are not ready for the ATC just yet. Of course it's not wrong that you ask, but shows that you don't have the big enough skill set and knowledge for ATC. Also you opening technique seems really odd, especially with bringing you knees forward (you say brake - I say that puts you in a dive, just like angle fliers - unless I understand wrong what you're trying to say) In other words, focus on your current suit until you get the opening position and other things right (also e.g. good exists so with more powerful suit you don't hit the stabilizer on the plane). 100% of people that I know who bought bigger suit "in-advance" switched the same minute they got it, even though they said they'd make X number of jumps before switching. Also, don't rush. You'll look 10 times cooler out-flying guys in Funks with your Swift, than not keeping up with them in your ATC.

Yes it would be a waste of money. If you have a good body position during opening (not even a perfect one, just relatively good) those canopies will not bring you any benefit. If you have shitty body position, those may help during some openings, but will not be a magical tool to save you and will still open in twists etc. I have used Pilot (9-cell) for few hundreds jumps and during this season have switched to Sabre1. I like the sabre 1 more, because it opens faster. With both canopies I've jumped suits as big as Freak2, Strix and Aura. With all of those the canopies have worked brilliantly. So you shouldn't worry that when upsizing the opening performance will decrease. Just keep your position good and all will be fine.

It's not in a any way a must or an actual recommendation. Mostly marketing move so people buy new canopies. People have been jumping canopies like pilot and spectre for years and with a bit of focus on opening position they open like a dream. With bad opening position, so called WS-specific canopies will at some point open equally bad as non-WS-specific ones.

I've never closely compared the two, I suspect sail cloth is smoother, it may however need more reenforcement to stay in shape. If I'm not mistaken, isn't PF's baloon fabric (not sure if used anymore) a thicker version of sail?

I would be curious to see what would happen if they made a suit out of sail cloth like HP canopies. I'm no expert here, but for me it seems that the material used for wingsuits (at least SQ, but I think PF uses now something very similar) is thicker and in my opinion would be more rigid than sail.

Only 3 pages of posts and finally some relevant answer :) How are the transitions in Rafale? Can you feel the increased surface?

I had similar observations related to multiple new models like Safire3, Kraken, Sabre2 (not that new :) ) , WinX when I was testing demo canopies. There were some small differences, but none of them was actually better at anything than my Sabre 1 from 1995 which I got for case of beer. Especially Safire3 and Kraken were big disappointments (super weak flare). Also Kraken and WinX had very short recover arcs (much shorten then both Sabre's). Sabre2 is good all-round canopy but the openings are way to long and like to search quite much every now and then. So yea, I second that. In all-round-canopy category no real progress has been made for past quarter of century. Interesting however to see progress in semi-cross-braced canopies and Shuemann-planform models, both cross-braced and non-cross-braced like X-fire (I've heard Sabre 3 will also be shuemann-planform, but of course much more docile than VK, Leia etc)

We had some demos couple weeks back in Finland. If you want a canopy that opens nicely despite of shitty body position - you can get one. (although I still managed to get line-twists on one jump and my position was not that shitty - so don't expect miracles) If you rather make some (quite little actually) effort and learn proper opening position - get some 9 cell like Safire3 (if we talk about NZ) - much more fun to fly and land. Kraken is as dull and boring as all other "super-awesome" trendy WS canopies for people that want results without doing any work. In addition to that inputs (risers and toggles) are quite hard. Flare is weak and not much bottom end (actually it doesn't even flare before bottom end) One good thing - it packs smaller. I tested 149 and it packed way smaller than Sabre1 150.

If the main problem is your low body weight, I don't think any of those canopies will solve it and be a magic solution. After all there are very similar, so there won't be a night-and-day difference, whichever you choose. As a wingsuiter, I would personally prefer more forward speed (i.e. Petra), as you can fly with your wingsuit open, which gives you more power and range. If you need to sink - it's more difficult to slow down if needed.

Maybe for you. BFL #349 (among others) would probably disagree. If F2 is difficult, then your pull technique is so poor, it licks other people's fingers in KFC. And in all seriousness - if you have any problems with it, then you clearily shoudn't be flying anything bigger than Phantom and gain more experiece.

This post was quite believable until this sentence... F2 pull is ridiculously easy, unless you dive like a mofo charging towards the ground. Hard for me to believe that somebody with 5000 WS jumps would have any problems with pull. I know you need to do marketing for PF, but this is some serious fairy-tale stuff, which makes me question if there's any bit of truth in your whole post

Agree with all of the above except the SkySnatch. I get the "deploy as fast a possible" in the BASE environment, but it doesn't make as much sense in the sky. I wouldn't characterize the SkySnatch as "bad" but it is "unnecessary" and has a couple drawbacks. 1- It is $200, basically double the price of most other kill-line PCs, and 3x the price of the cheapo ones. 2- Harder on gear, faster/harder extraction = more force being transmitted into everything from the PCA to the risers, it might even mean less life in the PC's ZP itself. Fine for BASE because 100ft might be life vs. death, but that isn't the case in the sky unless you're already in a pickle (should probably go straight to reserve) or you do something stupid (pulling dirty low or jump a huge suit with a 6' bridle). 3- It makes some assumptions that a faster/harder extraction is more stable, in a free packed BASE main with a tail pocket and a BASE container that basically completely comes apart on deployment (compared to a sky container) ok sure, that might be true. But when extracting a d-bag with line stows (even semi-stowless) from a container that is more restrictive, maybe not, fast and violent might mean more chaotic and more force thrown into a rotation of the bag. I do appreciate the wind tunnel stuff and comparison vids SQ made, but they are non-empirical/leave out a ton of variables and are relatively anecdotal. I've also seen plenty of back facing vid (mine included) with significant PC oscillation and a completely straight extraction with completely symmetrical inflation, PC oscillation does not = unstable extraction with a main that is in a d-bag. Case in point, CRW and swoopers haven't jumped on it (figuratively speaking), and their deployments are arguably less stable / more nuanced than WS ones, if it was a significant improvement, they would have switched over. 4- It packs big, again not a problem with BASE BOC's but sky BOC's are a good bit tighter. And there are no options for handles other than their cf tube and no tuck tab if you're into those. Again, it's not a bad thing, just unnecessary in the sky. I don't think I can agree, but maybe I'm wrong so here's my 2 cents: 1) True, it's more expensive - may be questionable if the costs worth the performance. 2) This I don't really get - PC's role ends right when canopy is in line stretch - canopy size and forward speed will always have MUCH more impact on forces you describe that any PC. After all PC is what, 4 sqft? Usual wingsuit canopy is 135-170 sqft which is over 30-40 times bigger. Also as stated https://base-book.com/pc-extraction-and-inflation "What we are seeing here is similar average drag force ". 3) It not the assumption that faster extraction is more stable. The assumption is that the actual 3D shape gives less oscillations. Maybe I have some things wrong, so I'm open for discussion. All that said - I actually own 2 skysnatches - Neither is in use with my WS rig for which I use normal PC

How about the other one?

Not sure if you understood me correclty, but I never said that Odyssey isn't a good or high performance canopy. Ultra-HP canopies are build for one, and only one purpose - competition swooping, not anything else. Examples being Petra, Peregrine, HK and also Scirocco (which doesn't get the respect it deserves). Velo and JVX are not ultra-HP canopies (not even close) There are also more tuned down versions of the above, that would follow what you refer to as "filling the hole between modern HP-class and competition ultra-HP" - these are Leias, Valkyries, Airwolves etc. I also wouldn't put Odyssey here. If you say that Odyssey is performance-wise comparable to Velo/JVX, why put it 2 classes higher? Again, I'm sure EVO Odyssey flies great. The original version got a lot of nice feedback and with improvements it for sure is a great canopy. But let's not put WRC cars to F1 class

+100!! Technique over gear!!!

Not sure if I or anybody would actually put Odyssey into ultraHP category (i.e. with JPXs or Valkyrie/Peregrine or even Scirocco) but definitely good to see progress also in high performance class canopies.

Thanks. Can you name a few so I can contact them?

Hello, I recently (finally!) obtained an original Sabre 1 canopy. I absolutely love it. However to make it even more perfect I'd like a vectran lineset for it. However that is impossible. Has anybody tried a Sabre2 lineset on the original sabre? How's the difference?