bsrodeo540

I have had random off-heading here and there on EVO once in a while, mostly attributed to packing and in line with any other opening, but have never experienced anything like that photo shows. In general my impressions from EVO openings is exactly as somebody above mentioned - they are actually not 'slow', I would call them fairly quick - as in not loosing too much altitude but absolutely not 'hard'. Out of all canopies I have jumped before, EVO had the most consistent and drama-free openings, including the original Odyssey. In fact I have a habit of rolling both my nose cells and tail when packing and, subjectively, feel like some of my off-headings are due to that as well. A buddy of mine jumped a similar EVO in Russia and never bothered with this kind of stuff, from what I saw his openings are smoother than mine. Below is a link to a short video that shows a few openings. Although most are sub-terminal, one or two are terminal, and from my experience the only difference I noticed between the two is the speed of the opening sequence, while the overall opening staging is the same regardless. I am not questioning your experience by any means, just sharing mine. One thing to note here is EVO likes heavier WL. I was jumping it at around 1.8 and it is the lowest you should put on it, ideally it loves 2.0+ and you should really get all it's juices and performance at 2.5. Not sure what kind of WL is coming from those reports you are mentioning, but it possibly could be due to underloaded canopy. Now, why I am mentioning all that is that because I did in fact experienced exactly the console openings you are mentioning on the original Odyssey loaded at around 1.6. Although again, over a 100 jumps I made on it, I probably had 2 or 3 total but I know what you are talking about. One of them was a very hard opening with end cells inflated fast and center cells refusing to inflate at all. Thought about chopping for a second until I popped the toggles and center cells finally inflated. I wasn't the one who packed it for that jump, so attributed it to a sloppy pack job.

I remember that happening on the original Odyssey, although not often and mostly when I relied on packers, but never had that happen on EVO.

I have an Odyssey EVO 105 with only 100 jumps on it (99 to be exact) if you’re interested, it’s a great canopy! Recently downsized but didn’t have time to post it, I find Skylark are not that popular in North America so was thinking to post it on European pages. In terms of pack volume, it supposed to be “one size up”. While I have not jumped standard PD canopies, before EVO 105 I jumped a standard Odyssey (not EVO) 120 and it felt like they packed the same, maybe EVO a bit smaller (so maybe like 110-115 “standard”). PS, mine comes with both standard and a removable slider /full RDS. It’s actually packed in a separate dbag right now, so probably can measure it somehow for you.

Totally not in the loop as far as how these qualifications work, but here’s one “out there” idea for a high-tech age. Develop a database with login credentials, save a video for every qualifying jump for a AFFI candidate (not only successful but failed ones as well). Then if something goes wrong down the road - it’d be easy to review if that instructor actually passed all requirements and who signed off for that. A step further would be to make a system where X number of independent examiners have to review the videos and ‘pass’ the candidate (e.g. 5 to review, 4 out of 5 to pass, or 10 to review, 6/7/8/9/10 of of 10 to pass). This would ensure a permanent record, a more unified approach towards standards required to pass and virtually eliminate any questions regarding qualifications of any given AFFI. It may or may not be difficult to implement for reasons I don’t know. As I said, just poppped into my mind, decided to share.

Almost any mal that has ever happened could have been avoided one way or another. That’s not the point.

One more reason to jump with bigger reserves, in case when every square inch of fabric over your head counts..

I agree with all of that, but was wondering if I am missing something. On that note, I am looking for recommendations for a 'best' modern rig brand/model/size that would hold 90 crossbraced with a 143 standard reserve (not an LV)? If such combo is hard to come by, then perhaps 126 reserve? I have not done much research yet, just want to get a general feel and opinions from anyone who happen to jump a similar combo. Edit - I am currently jumping a 105 main that packs a little bigger (maybe a 115) with a 150 old(ish) Microraven reserve. My rig is sized so that I can't go any lower on the main and my reserve fits tight, so looking to switch pretty soon to something that would give me room to downsize to a 90(ish) crossbraced with a 143/126 reserve that isn't packed too tight (but not loose either).

What’s everyone’s opinion on small reserves? I get it it’s all relative and I heard an opinion that ideally reserve should be close to the size of the main, which supposedly should be easier to deal with in the event of double out, but personally I’ve been reluctant to downsize my reserve, rig specs permitting. I’m flying 105 main with a 150 reserve now, I’m a smaller dude so might consider 126 in the future, but overall my attitude is that my reserve is my last line of defense and so far I can’t justify the benefit of a smaller and slicker rig at the expense of reduced safety (i.e. spinning linetwists). I guess it also is somewhat discipline-specific?

Need more info to answer. “Swooping” is a broad term these days. Short answer is Ody EVO. The wing loves to be loaded though, I’m flying 1.8 and it’s arguably it’s starting range. Katana will dive more (probably) due to steeper trim, but EVO is a another generation, dives are super consistent and (again, an assumption) will carry the energy better and longer due to a number of innovative design elements.

Yes, I would. Directly from their website: "Odyssey Evo is a great example of how Evo platform raises the bar for non-cross-braced canopies to the level of ultra high performance wings". I have to note here that what they refer to "ultra high performance" mainly applies to high wingloading over 2 and even closer to 2.5. This wing is a great stepping stone to CB canopies and flies great at lower WL around 1.8-2.0 (I fly it at 1.8 and that's exactly why I went with this canopy). IMHO there is no point in loading it lower than that. From what I know so far this wing loves to be loaded though and full potential is realized at high WL.

No they don't and pictures they have are not at an angle to see the planform, but it is schuemann -

Skylark Odyssey Evo

??? Really? Did you actually try to stall it? I find some wings give you much stronger “toggle resistance” earlier than others but often it’s deceptive and the wing wouldn’t stall till much deeper/later. Also doesn’t it mess it with your FR inputs? Sorry never flown a fully CB wing yet, just curious

Thanks a lot for the feedback man, really helps!

How does it perform on a lighter wingloading (around 1.8)? I am currently jumping the original Odyssey 120 at around 1.55 and feel like it's not loaded enough, flies great and overall great canopy, but I would like a bit more oomph out of it. So considering either getting another Odyssey 110 (1.7 WL) or Odyssey EVO 105 (1.8). How would these two canopies compare? This season i started to dedicate more jumps specifically to canopy flight and taking canopy courses, next season's plan is to dial in those 90's and make a transition to 270's by the end of the season, so looking for an appropriate canopy for the goals. My thinking is that Evo 105 should be a good transition canopy to a crossbraced canopy after a couple of seasons (as in Evo 105 - crossbraced 90 for example) as getting anything over 90 would mean WL less than 2.0 which is not optimal for crossbraced. But I am not sure if Od-120 to Evo-105 is a good step. Would love to hear your opinion.