Basejumper.com - archive

I have recently entered the sport after 5 years of skydiving and over 950 jumps.
I started with second hand gear to save some money and also to check if I was feeling ok with it (Gargoyle and Troll DW - 5 vents).

My jumps are almost all terminal tracks from wall (tracksuit) and really love to keep improving my flying skills. I am not planning to do tight landings jumps or very low stuff.

So what canopy would you choose and why?

I was thinking of getting the Vision from Atair as I have been told it performs quite similar to the Troll.
I also have received some negative feedback on the Oultaw for using it like an all purpose canopy. What do you think?
Anyone has tried the Hayduke yet?

Thanks for your help

Come to AirgameZ in the UK this June and you can test jump Vision, Hayduke and Flik 2 from a 485ft crane on to a massive beach. Check out the face book page for more info.

Laters

Julian.

I’ll have some feedback on the Hayduke by next week. I have just over 300 jumps on and OSP and another 150ish on 2 different sizes of Outlaws. I don’t have really anything bad to say about either and have taken them both to 132’, jumped large wingsuits with them, and slick tracked with large mesh/no slider brake with no issues. I like the Outlaw’s wingsuit openings more then the OSP and I felt it was a little better in deep brakes. Everything I’ve heard about the Hayduke makes it sound pretty much better in every way from the Outlaw, expect for in REALLY deep brakes, but it’s deep brakes still out perform most other canopies. I’m excited for the chance to jump mine that I just packed up last night. I’ll let you know what I think once I get some jumps on it.

If you're all slider-up and not worried about sinking in to small landing areas, why are you only looking at canopies with slat systems? The slats help with sink, but definitely take away from other areas like glide.

If I were building a slider-up system I would run a canopy without slats which typically packs up smaller, easier, and has added flying performance.

They would be (in alphabetical order):

1. Apex: FLiK II, Lobo, Lynx
2. Atair: Troll
3. Squirrel: Ibex

For Atair I would recommend the Peak over the troll. It’s their low pack terminal canopy.

I skimmed over the part where you said you weren’t going to do anything low. If that’s the case I would recommend a Feather from Asylum. Great flare and openings and you’ll have a hard time finding a lighter canopy than it.

Thanks Dan. Forgot about the Peak and Feather also fits the criteria.

At least your not bias

you're

Are you going to jump in Italy? Or Norway?

Every load I've been on at Brento in the past 4 years has had at least one person landing out. You seem confident that you'll always land in the main LZ. Are you certain you won't ever need to land in a more difficult area?

I don't actually think that the Vision and the Troll fly very similarly. I vastly prefer the flight characteristics of the Vision to the Troll, but I don't find them any more similar than almost any two BASE canopies.

If your priority is just to have the smallest, lightest rig, I'd look at the Peak and the Crux (no 3 rings). But if you want to have a little more capability for potential out landings, I'd consider moving up to a Flik II (still very small and light, but with better flight characteristics for steep approaches, and available at very reasonable prices as part of the Rook package), or even all the way up to the canopies with slats.

If bulk/weight (and price) are less important considerations for you, then you should look at the Vision and Hayduke. For your intended use, I'd skip the Outlaw and OSP and look at the higher glide canopies (Vision and Hayduke) from those manufacturers.

If you're going to do exclusively slider up jumps, you can also save some weight and bulk by going with spectra lines, too.


Bottom line, I'd replace the Outlaw in your canopies under consideration with the Flik II. Then, if low bulk is your priority, I'd go with the Flik II. If overall rig size/weight/price are less important to you, I'd consider the Hayduke and Vision instead, and try to demo them at the event in the UK.

Disclaimer: I have not flown the Hayduke. I have made some jumps on the Flik II, and quite a few more on the Vision.

I really appreciate your answers guys.

I am planning to do several trips a year to jump the Big Walls (Brento mostly) but from time to time I will do some SD jumps around Spain, Portugal or France so I do not want a exclusively SU canopy.

Weight or bulk is not really a problem so I will take a closer look to the Flik II.

Thanks to everyone and hope to see you in any exit

You can get both OSP and Troll (I guess maybe the Vision too) as well made out of light fabric. I have a 245 vented UL Troll with dacron line set packed into a HybridLD2 built for 245 UL canopy. It´s a bit tight fit mainly because of the added bulk of the dacron lines but it fits there with no problems.

Both of my Visions have been light fabric. One with spectra lines for slider up only and one with Dacron lines for general purpose.

FWIW, the Flik II is also available in light fabric, and I believe the Hayduke is _only_ available in light fabric.

True, but a Peak will still be lighter and lower pack than a vented troll, OSP or Vision. Just like an Ibex or Feather would be lighter than a lightweight Outlaw or Hayduke due to the added weight and bulk of vents and slats.

Since he asked about something for terminal only without tight LZ’s and Joe was comparing it to lightweight canopies for each manufacturer like the Ibex it seemed the Peak would fit better in his example than the Troll.

The difference in volume between the Peak and Troll LW is going to be a lot less than the difference between the Ibex and the Outlaw or Hayduke (or OSP or Vision), because the Troll LW doesn't have the slats/zp/etc, which add quite a bit of volume.

The Troll and Flik II are general purpose non-slatted canopies, and they will have lower pack volume than the slatted offerings (OSP, Vision, Outlaw, Hayduke).

Basically there is a spectrum from lowest to highest bulk that roughly correlates to flight performance (from the extra technology), where Peak/Ibex are on one end, and Vision/Outlaw/OSP/Hayduke are on the other end, with Troll LW and Flik II being in the middle in both categories.

Also, I've noticed that the Ibex is no longer on Squirrel's web site, so I assume it's been discontinued. I'd guess they have some new ultra low bulk offering in development, but at the moment, the Peak is the only thing I can find that's really in that (ultra low bulk, higher performance) category, unless you count the Lynx in that group.

Feather?

Yes, that too. I'm not clear on when/if the Asylum product line will show up on the Squirrel web site. It's been over a year since they merged, so I'm kind of surprised that it's not there.

I’m not sure either if/when they will appear on Squirrels site. But I do know you can still order them through Marty.

The way I see it is 3 classes:

Ultra light slider up canopies: Ibex (discontinued), Feather, and Peak

Mid range canopies: Everything from Apex, Blackjack, Ace, Seven, Troll

Then the 5 vent slat canopies: Hayduke, Vision, Outlaw, OSP

I would move the Lobo (which is only available in UL) into the "Ultra light slider up canopies" category. When it was originally developed it was introduced as as all-around canopy, and it still absolutely has that capability, but the Lynx was introduced to take its place as the higher performance all-around wing. The Lobo is a little sportier than the Lynx but the Lynx has proven to be better on low objects. That said, we've started steering slider-up jumpers towards the Lobo as the high performance, low bulk option and encouraging all-around jumpers to look at the Lynx and/or FLiK II.

I would also change "mid range canopies" to "All Around, Non-Slatted Canopies" but that's just semantics.

Typo, I meant mid weight. But yeah all around canopies work too. Is the lobo available without vents and a spectra option to save weight and bulk?

I find the OSP considerably more docile than the Vision.

We've built quite a few without vents for skydiving, but none intended for use in BASE. The non-vented, mega-super-low-bulk, slider-up only, high performance BASE canopy market is highly specialized and therefore very, very small.

Our canopy efforts have been focused on all-around designs as that's what most people are asking for. That said, we've made some purpose-built low object canopies in the past.

So that’s a no in spectra and no vents? In that case I’d put it into the all around mid weight canopy category. As those are the canopies that come lightweight or standard and have a couple to 5 vents and Dacron lines. I wouldn’t put it in the same class as a Feather, Ibex, or Peak. Those would be the lightest possible canopies for the guy counting grams and landing in wide open green fields.

I think that's fair. <This is where I would insert a thumbs up if I could>

Absolutely. It's way more docile.

I personally prefer the Vision to the OSP, but I usually recommend the OSP for jumpers in more challenging environments (especially newer jumpers). For example, the Vision is fantastic in Twin Falls (or Switzerland) but the OSP is going to be a way better canopy for almost anyone who lives in Sydney.

If you're just looking at weight and pack volume, it might be fair to include all the Apex canopies in the ultra light weight/low bulk category.

Is this low pack volume/bulk of Apex canopies related to durability in any way?

Not structurally.

The Apex canopies don't have any ZP surfaces, which means that they pack smaller.

The ZP does give the canopy a better flight profile late in it's service lifetime, but doesn't effect the strength or structural integrity.

I'd expect a canopy with ZP on the nose to fly/flare better as it ages, which is especially noticeable when it gets up into the 400+ jumps range.

That has been our (read: Todd's) experience. That said, the service life question is a major variable.

We had one all PN9 canopy with a (reported) 1000 jumps on it with the jumper reporting no meaningful difference in performance. I think there are a few important notes here:

1. Let's call it 750 jumps instead of 1000. All I can confirm is he ran through 3 line kits before replacing the canopy. The canopy definitely looked worse for the wear.

2. I'm confident the deterioration in performance existed, but he was just used to the canopy and the change occurred slowly enough that it never struck him as significant.

That's obviously an extreme example, so call the normal service life something like 400 - 500 jumps depending on a million different variables that we're all aware of.

When Todd was building canopies with ZP leading edges, and even full ZP top skins, an increase in canopy longevity was definitely one of the pros of the design. The negatives we found (at least on our canopies) were: harder openings, larger pack volume, heavier canopies, and a lot of complaints about packing (which could reasonably be tied to reduced heading performance if pack jobs got sloppy enough).

Ultimately Todd decided that the longer service life wasn't worth the aforementioned negatives and moved away from using ZP on our designs. Another large factor was that we just weren't seeing that many canopies being flown all the way to the very end of their service life. He saw that most jumpers had a tendency to retire the canopy before the ZP would have really been a game-changer for longevity. Most commonly because the canopy would reach a point of being "totaled." That is, the repair cost would exceed canopy value. If you bring us an older canopy that needs some patch work and a new line kit it's not that hard to approach $1000 in repairs. At this point we see most jumpers opt to get a new canopy instead of trying to stretch the life of their old one a little longer by dumping money into it.

He's also a huge proponent of retiring BASE gear well before the end of its service life. Feel free to jump your skydiving main until it explodes...you've got a reserve. But on a single parachute system we always advocate against pushing your canopy anywhere near the end of airworthiness.

Anyway, sorry for the long reply. But we get asked a lot why we moved away from using ZP. Short answer: Todd didn't think the pros were worth the cons (on our designs) and we just don't see that many jumpers taking their canopies the distance.

IMPORTANT: This is not intended to be a commentary on other manufacturers use of ZP in their canopies. Different canopy designs are sure to behave differently when swapping out fabrics. I can only speak to the Apex experience with ZP on our canopy designs.

Some more info on “Why ZP”

A small amount of ZP used in a specific portion of a BASE canopy has proven to provide benefits to glide, flare, and openings.

Aerodynamics (specifically the effects of low or zero porosity surfaces on an airfoil) on such a simple level as BASE canopies usually don’t create much debate. There are factual benefits to zero porosity cloth, and well-documented benefits to it being used sparingly on BASE canopies.

Compared to a canopy with no ZP on it:
A canopy with a ZP leading edge will open faster, glide further, and flare better, on jump 1.
And, it will open faster, glide further, and flare better on jump 1000, all other things being equal.

Why? Due to a simple fact which we can probably all agree on: air passes through permeable cloth, but does not pass through non-permeable (ZP) cloth.

The leading edge is a critical part of the airfoil (including at high AoA during flare), any air that passes through the surface of the canopy does not create circulating flow (lift) over the top of it, or add pressure to the inside of it.

ZP is 100% about improving aerodynamics, and that is why these days it can only be found on a small portion of the leading edge. It’s great to be focused on durability. That is a part of BASE. But that is not principally why ZP benefits parachutes.

About pack volume:
ZP is used on a small percentage of the chord, on the upper surface only. We have the upper, we have the lower, and we have the ribs. That means ZP makes up a total of less than 8% of the canopy fabric in your packjob for most parachutes.

About the weight:
Common ZP cloth is about 50 grams per square meter. PN9, the lightest cloth we could compare it to, is 30. What is 20 grams more weight per square meter, on less than 10% of the total fabric? The difference in actual weight on an Outlaw 248, for example, uses about 631 square feet of cloth, with 29 of that being ZP. That’s only 5% of the total, and about 60 grams (two ounces!) more weight. This ratio will be similar across most modern canopies which employ ZP.

About packing:
I have never met anyone who has been unable to handle the small amount of ZP on modern BASE canopies. Understand packing, and what the ZP is doing for you, and the result of having it there.

About openings:
A canopy with a ZP leading edge will expand and inflate faster, all other things being equal. That is why it is important to understand how to configure your gear for higher airspeed deployments (slow slider, slider brake, slider control, PC selection, packing), and how to control your airspeed and body configuration (change your AoA before deployment whether you’re tracking or wingsuiting). Learn these things, use ZP, and reap the many benefits (which, we should say, include faster openings).
(One point to consider: if you have a glass back or neck, you might not want to deal with a faster opening, or you could take a shorter delay). For 99% of jumpers, the performance benefits of ZP outweigh the costs.


Some “real” cons of ZP from a manufacturing perspective:
It’s more expensive: Unless you’re getting the shaft from Porcher Industries because you order PN9 infrequently and in small quantities, ZP costs more than PN9 and most other 0-3cfm cloths.

Top surface cuts: It takes more time to manage an additional top surface panel, cut it, connect to main panel. Time is money.

It’s slippery! Like a new skydive main is annoying to pack, it requires understanding and skill to sew and takes more time.

It’s more cloth to stock. BASE jumpers like colors, and stocking another range of colors in another cloth type is not easy.

Also note:
Many aspects of BASE canopies get worse if you use too much ZP.. There is, without question, a sweet spot (amount). And there is, without question, a point where it quickly becomes generally detrimental (there is a reason why BASE canopies are almost entirely 0-3cfm cloth). But that “too much ZP” point was worked through many years ago, and modern BASE canopies have what we could say is a proven and successful track record of using the right amount of ZP in the right places.
For an example of too much, it was learned years ago that a complete upper surface ZP canopy does not perform well during extraction (so slippery!). If one formed an opinion about ZP way back then based on that much ZP, it would not apply to today’s parachute designs.

For more background on parachute cloth and how it is employed today by some BASE manufacturers, see here. https://squirrel.ws/...-light-right-for-you

thanks.

-Matt

I think this disclaimer really is very important.

Canopy design is massively complex, and there are a lot of considerations being traded off. It's evident that different manufacturers have made different decisions in the design process.

I find a lot of people want to simplify and say "a canopy with ZP/Slats/Extra Stabilizers/more upper control lines/etc will fly/flare/open/handle turbulence/etc better" when the truth is that that's only true if all else is equal, and all else is never equal.

Every canopy design should be evaluated as a whole, judging the balance of it's characteristics against the overall requirements of the jumper.

On the question of ZP and improvement of various characteristics: My personal experience has been that brand new canopies that are identical except the ZP on the nose are very, very similar in performance when new, and much less similar in performance at 400+ jumps. I base my opinion on (a) flying two identical-except-the-CUS Ace 280 canopies back to back on a longish trip about 15 years ago, putting the first 50-ish jumps on each canopy, (b) retro-coating ZP onto older canopies (500+, sometimes 500+++ jumps) and jumping them before and after the coating was applied, and (c) jumping several sets of identical-except-ZP canopies of similar age and jump numbers over the years.

It's very difficult to get really accurate information on that topic because (a) very few people have sets of identical-except-ZP canopies of similar ages, and (b) there are a very limited number of canopies currently on the market with the option of ordering with or without the ZP (offhand, I can only think of the Ace, Blackjack and Se7en in that category--is the Feather available with/without the ZP?).

Although I do have some experience to report on the ZP v. non-ZP issue, that experience is very unlikely to be relevant to the vast majority of modern jumpers (very few of whom will be choosing ZP as only one option on an otherwise identical canopy).

edit to add: I've just been reminded that the Mayhem is also available with/without the ZP option on the leading edge upper surface.

If there was a single perfect canopy design we would all be building it. And as much as you (and I) would like to trumpet that there is a single perfect design...and that we're the only ones that have it...it's simply not true.

There is no perfect BASE canopy design. There are only different canopy designs with different trade-offs being made to achieve the best possible balance of performance. That optimal balance is not a matter of fact. It's a matter of opinion that will be different for each individual jumper based on his/her experience/jumping style/location/etc.

Just because ZP can benefit one design does not make it universally better. This is a logic trap that's easy to fall into. I've gotten requests in the past for a FLiK II with a ZP nose and slats...the idea being that we'd end up with a canopy that has all of the strengths of a FLiK II plus the benefits of a ZP nose and slats. This is false. We would end up with a completely different canopy with its own unique sets of strengths and weaknesses (which are all speculative until we've actually built it). To Tom's point, ZP might be better on your design ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, but ALL ELSE IS NOT EQUAL and therefore it's false to say that ZP is a universally better design element.

Ultimately Apex's experience has been congruent with Tom's in that the most meaningful benefit to OUR DESIGNS when using a ZP LE is to improve performance as the canopy ages. For all of the aforementioned reasons, this was not a compelling enough advantage to accept the negatives that we experienced ON OUR DESIGNS. Chief among them being harder openings...or simply "faster openings" depending on how you'd like to frame it for marketing purposes.

As for weight and pack volume...we measure that all here. Every canopy from every manufacturer that we can get our hands on. Without posting our internal data I will say that it's significant. It's significant enough that we have to materially upsize our trays when accommodating these larger ZP/slatted designs.

As for packing, Apex BASE sees a lot of students jumping a lot of different canopies. It is objectively more difficult, especially for newer jumpers, to pack when ZP is introduced. I understand you've never met anyone that's had that problem even slightly...but we have...and our best course of action is to listen to our customer base.

Your attempt to spin this into a manufacturing issue is clever, but simply not applicable here. We were capable of incorporating ZP into our canopies in the past, and we're capable of it still. Our decision not to use ZP is a design decision based on the aforementioned factors.

For the Apex experience based on using a variety of fabrics on BASE canopies in the field for over 24 years, see the following article:

https://apexbase.com/...ear-base-parachutes/

Respectfully (and I truly mean that),

Joe