HI
Tom Aiello could you please comment why not taking the troll below 260ft.
thanks
HI
Tom Aiello could you please comment why not taking the troll below 260ft.
thanks
I have posted a complete review of the Troll based on my experience.
I want to make clear that I have had a VERY positive experience with Morpheus Technologies, and I would recommend their other gear (review for Gargoyle forthcoming). I also understand that Morpheus and Atair are both concerned about the issues I have raised, and are re-designing the Troll based on feedback from various sources.
I have purposefully refrained from posting this review while I knew that Morpheus was on the road, as I wanted to be sure they had a chance to respond.
My review may sound overly harsh. Unfortunately, I'm a blunt guy, with no real need to make gear manufacturers like me, and with every reason to push them to improve their gear. I'm hoping that no one takes this personally.
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
"I have posted a complete review of the Troll based on my experience."
ummmm, where? I checked the reviews section to no avail. I even looked under my desk and could not find it there....
When you post a review, the system says something like "it'll take four to seven days to process and post the review..." Generally, I've found that it takes far less time than that.
If it doesn't show up in a day or two, I'll post it here. If you really want it right now, I can email it to you--but I'd prefer to wait and see if it shows up.
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
OK, here's the whole review.
Troll: Flies Like A Dream, Opens Like a Nightmare
This review is based on my first 50 (37 slider down, 6 terminal slider up, 7 sub-terminal slider up) jumps on my Troll 290 (wingloading .67—calculation is nonstandard and based on estimate of Troll 290 as approximate 310 foot area, as stabilizer area is included in all other BASE canopy size measurements, but not in the Troll). Note that I have an original Troll, without the valve system or enlarged crossports, both of which ought to address many of my worries.
The Troll is a fantastic wing. It has a very wide control range, excellent glide ratio and good controllability in deep brakes. However, its opening characteristics, both slider up and slider down, leave much to be desired.
The control range of the Troll compares favorably with most BASE canopies I have jumped. It maintains stability in deeper brakes than any other un-vented canopy I have used (but not so well as a Blackjack or Vtec FOX), making it a good choice for steep approaches and tight landing areas. It also has better forward speed and glide than any BASE airfoil except the Ace/Blackjack airfoil.
Unfortunately, openings are far more important than flight. My Troll’s openings have ranged from mediocre to terrifying.
Slider up openings at terminal have been acceptable, and even pleasantly soft, compared with other BASE canopies. Unfortunately, the cost appears to be that sub-terminal slider up openings are slow and often inconsistent. Both heading and opening speed suffer dramatically compared with any other BASE canopy I have experience with. I have also had a few “snivel” scares, where the canopy appeared to take far too long to open. Still, so long as object strike is not a major concern, and opening altitude is ample, these ought to be acceptable (under no circumstances would I make a low pull under this canopy, though).
Slider down openings, though are the Troll’s downfall. I have experienced asymmetric pressurization, inconsistent inflation, odd pressure waves, and strange “bucking” on most of my slider down openings. I would not use this canopy on any high risk jump (underhung object, low pull or freefall under 250’ for example). At very low airspeeds (delays of 1 second or less) the problems seem to magnify (as expected).
I understand that the designer was making exclusively slider up jumps when the canopy was designed, and it shows. For most European jumps, I’d say the canopy will work fine. But if you jump slider down regularly, even at 2-3 second delays, or (God help you) especially if you live Down Under, I’d avoid this canopy.
A few other cautions.
I found the Troll’s factory brake settings very shallow (even with my relatively low wingloading). Customizing your deep brake setting personally is absolutely necessary on this, and all other, BASE canopies.
Also, Atair’s factory toggle marks appeared to be very long. On my first jump I used them, and found that I had no effect on the wing until the toggle was 3/4 of the way down. Obviously, a large part of this results from my personal physique (5’8” guys with stubby arms don’t generally fly 290 square foot canopies). However, I’d still recommend having a very forgiving landing area, and some spare altitude, until you iron out the toggle settings.
My opinion: wait for the next version—Atair appears to be a quality operation, and hopefully they’ll be able to address these issues with their new release.
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
Does anybody know if atair will produce a better troll and if yes, when it will be released?
ras.t
Word on the street is that the valves and crossport modification are currently in field tests. I don't know when they will be available for purchase. I have sent an email to Morpheus asking that question, but they haven't responded yet. I assume that's because they're checking with Atair about the timeline. So, I'd expect to see Troll v1.1 (same airfoil with valves and improved crossporting) by the end of summer at the latest.
I also understand that the entire airfoil is being revisited and redesigned by Atair. I expect that Troll v2.0 (new airfoil) will take a bit longer.
That's all speculation on my part, though. Maybe one of the dealers or manufacturers could shed some light on this for us?
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
Tom, Thanks for adding your thoughts to the review page.
However, you comment that: "stabilizer area is included in all other BASE canopy size measurements".
I can't speak for any other manufacturer but Consolidated Rigging uses the Parachute Industry Association standard for surface are calculation. This is airfoil cord x wing span measured 6.0" aft of the leading edge on the upper surface. Stabilizers are NOT included.
Thanks
Adam
so whats up with atairs measurments?
225=240 or 225=225???????
ras.t
I received my Troll about 6 weeks ago and it has the crossport modification as standard which I believe is the case with all Trolls currently delivered. Mine is a 245 which I am told is comparable to a 260 Mojo. I've put about 30 jumps on it some from the Perrine both slider up and down, several from a 330' "S" and from a 400' "E".
After reading Tom's review, I reviewed video of some of my openings that were taken from above. While I am not a canopy expert by any stretch of the imagination, I didn't see any of the of the items mentioned so I would have to believe that the crossport mod. resolved the issues. Tom, have you had your Troll retrofitted and, if so, did that help?
I do agree that the toggle length is long from the factory, but once dialed in, I have had good control and excellent flair.
Also, like Tom mentioned, I have found the Troll to fly great. I opened low over the water in TF recently and easily made it to land in a situation where I would have surely gotten wet under my other (non-Troll) BASE canopy. Guess the Troll didn't want to get wet anymore than I did.
Once I get some more jumps on it I'll post a more detailed review but right now I'm very happy.
Baxter.
:D
>Tom,
>have you had your Troll retrofitted and, if so,
>did that help?
Nope. I've inquried of Morpheus if it is possible to get my Troll retrofitted, but they have not yet responded.
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
I apologize, Adam. I had never asked you about it, and assumed that some other people werer familiar with how you measured your canopies. I guess not.
Atair's sizing statement:
"The Troll is available in five precisely scaled sizes: (Note – Atair does not include the stabilizers in their measurement, consequently, you may find yourself scaling down one size. Example – Troll 225 with stabilizers included, comparable to a 240.)"
is given on Morpheus' web page at:
http://www.baserig.com/canopies.html
Does anyone know how BR and Vertigo measure their canopies?
--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com
From a manufacturer’s standpoint, we don’t actively promote some of the ultra-low freefalls that are being done today. That being said, we agree that the standard Troll is not the best choice for this scenario. Anymore than any other non-secondary inlet canopy would be.
However, we would still prefer the standard Troll over other non-vented BASE specific canopies due to the spectacular glide ratio that it offers. This benefit can offer you more canopy time. This, combined with a great control range can give you the ability to utilize the altitude that you have.
Atair uses the PIA standard recommendation for measuring the Troll canopy. The stabilizers are not included in this measurement.
Regarding the crossport situation on the standard Troll: There has been a size increase in the crossports across the board. Tom’s 290 was actually the first one to receive this mod as we had not shipped his canopy to him when the specs came to us. Once we received this new sizing, we privately contacted the owners of the existing Trolls that were in the field and had them sent to us for standardizing.
Contrary to Tom’s post, testing of the Troll canopy has not only been performed from big walls, but a range of altitudes, including a local 390’ bridge that is conveniently located near the Atair factory. As a side note… it seems kind of funny that Robert Pecnik of Birdman and his teammate Nenad Pesut placed 3rd in opening accuracy at the Petronas event last year, and came in 1st place in the overall team event. All of this was accomplished with the old crossport sizing.
To our understanding, the emergence of bottomskin inlets came about to help a canopy pressurize faster in slider-down situations. What this seems to have done is to create an entirely new acceptability of altitudes that are being freefallen. What was meant to be a tool to save X amount of feet during pressurization has become extra freefall time. This, in turn has at least opened up many more sites.
Atair has completed all testing of the new secondary inlet Troll canopy. We have seen the performance figures and it achieves single stage pressurization with no loss of aerofoil performance. The bottomskin inlets feature a valve system patented by a consultant of Atair Aerodynamics’, Inc. Some people won’t jump without them and others really don’t show a need for them. It is a personal preference and depends on the types of jumps that you do. One thing to consider is that if you do jump with a bottomskin vented canopy, the opening forces are much greater than if the same delay is taken with a non-vented canopy. It’s like the difference between apples and oranges.
Robert and Kathy Jones
Morpheus Technologies
excellent post from morpheus.
would just like to add that the troll was tested with over 1000 jumps by atair's owners, test jumpers & friends before being released for sale. the bulk of the jumps were evenly divided between a local bridge measuring 100m and arco in northern itally (2 hour drive from factory). the area surrounding atair's factory is blessed with base sites: 800' chimneys, 300-2000' walls, low bridges, etc....stane atair's founder racks up more base jumps per year than skydives.
sincerely,
max
atair aerodynamics
www.extremefly.com
p.s cobaltdan is arranging for troll belly cam footage to be posted on our website in few weeks.
when will this vented troll be available to the "public"?
ras.t
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks