Difference between F111 and Zero P chute

I'm a fairly new skydiver... can anyone tell me the difference between an F111 and Zero P chute - including any differences in landing them?

There is a big difference!
I am no authority by any means, but i have flown several zp & F1-11 canopies. My current canopy is an Aged F1-11, which only magnifies the differences in my mind.

For starters, a ZP canopy will generally not degrade it's porosity (amount of air it passes thru) over time. Just last weekend, i saw a Sabre2 with over 2,000 jumps on it, and with new lines it flew like it was brand new. As for F1-11, after about 200 terminal openings, a canopy pilot will begin to notice the performance degrading.
The porosity issue also influences how an canopy lands. ZP canopies will have a considerably more amount of flare behind them, making them slightly easier to land. This past weekend i had the opportunity to demo a Sabre2 170, and at 1/3 brakes, the canopy leveled out. In comparison, my current F1-11 canopy needs to be punched to full brakes to even come close, and i must set up my final approach around 300 feet, & make almost no minor corrections to build up enough airspeed to have a respectable flare. Quite frusterating.
It's almost like comparing apples to oranges. Up in the air, they have different flight characteristics which all comes down to personal preference.
On the plus side, F1-11 is very easy to pack, and has a slightly smaller pack volume.

This is my general opinion. If anybody has corrections or more to add, please be my guest.

best regards,
shaun smith

Not that I should , but I'll give you my opinion. I say opinion b/c I that's all it can be at this point.(and at this hour) --- 1)F-111 is a more pourous fabric. 2)Yes, it does degrade over time. 3)Flight charachteristics should be the same to begin with. 4)The glide path seems to be longer with a z-p.
I fly a saber 2, and I flew on a hybrid (Navigator)as a student. I have had one reserve ride on a PD Reserve (F-111). I found that the hybrid "sank" a little faster than the saber2, and the saber 2 has more forward speed. (I'm not sure speed has all that much to do with the fabric as much as the design - the fabric will just lets the canopy last longer without degrading) Take this with a grain as well. The reserve ride - lots of adrenalyn pumping on that ride. It seemed the most docile canopy I had ever flown. Of course I wasn't trying to do any spirals or anything. (I did enough of those right before.) I did however have a very soft landing, with almost no glide. I just sank right in and flared - actually really nice, considering.
That's all my limited experiance can conjure up at the moment. If I am incorrect about anything here, please set me strait. I don't want to mis-inform and I don't want to be mis-informed either.

Not an expert by any means, but FWIW: The nylon fabric in Zero-P canopies undergoes a special process during manufacturing that gives them a mostly impermeable coating that does not allow air to pass through them as easily as it does through non-coated F-111. This coating is what makes a brand new ZP canopy such a bitch to pack. It is quite slippery until it has had several pack jobs.

The major benefit of Z-P is longevity. I put close to 2000 jumps on a Stiletto 107 and it flew nearly the same on the last jump as it did on the first. Since the porosity remains relatively the same from jump 1 to jump X, the canopy maintains the same opening and flaring characteristics.

Old F-111 canopies lose much of their performance as the porosity of the fabric gradually increases.

For real technical details, try a canopy manufacturer's website. This may help:


http://performancedesigns.com/education.asp

Looking back and Thinking about some things, maybe my thoughts arn't totally acurate, bc while my canopy is F1-11, it also only has 7 cells. I would like to spend some time on a nice 7cell ZP canopy (I.g. Spectre, triathalon, synergy) and see what i think then.

sds

I'm brand new to ZP canopies, but am under the impression from what I've read that the current hot swooping canopies wouldn't be possible without ZP material. F-111 type is low porosity, something like 0-3 cfm, which is pretty darn low. It's what most reserves are still made of. But ZP is ZERO porosity, it doesn't let any, or darn near any air bleed through. I've been hearing that before ZP, wingloads over 1.1 were pretty much out of the question unless you enjoyed thumping in, but that ZP - and new airfoil desings - have made high wingloads and hot swoops possible.

Anyone care to shed more light on this ?

Anyone can share experience in difference between opening impact of a ZP & F1.11 please....

Opening is far more canopy design and packing than fabric. My understanding (and I could certainly be wrong on this) is that it's the aerodynamics of flying that's where the differences become noticeable. Particularly flare & landing. 

And the difference between 'new' F1-11 and 'ragged out' F1-11 is more than the difference between 'new' F1-11 and zero-P.

 

On 8/2/2019 at 9:15 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

And the difference between 'new' F1-11 and 'ragged out' F1-11 is more than the difference between 'new' F1-11 and zero-P.

 

F-111 or F111.  It's named after the Aardvark.

On 8/2/2019 at 4:15 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

Opening is far more canopy design and packing than fabric. My understanding (and I could certainly be wrong on this) is that it's the aerodynamics of flying that's where the differences become noticeable. Particularly flare & landing. 

And the difference between 'new' F1-11 and 'ragged out' F1-11 is more than the difference between 'new' F1-11 and zero-P. 

 

Actually fabric does play an important role in opening. It's certainly noticeable. There is a reason why there are virtually no ZP reserves or BASE canopies. 0-3 CFM material does in fact open better than ZP. This is the same reason why F111 PCs exist. They let some air through and therefore tend to be a bit more stable and less wobbly. Mirage talks about it on their website and why they prefer F111 PCs. If ZP PCs were universally superior, then F111 PCs wouldn't still exist. It's a trade-off. Lifespan for performance. F111 PCs are more stable and therefore in theory are less likely to cause PC-induced problems on your main (like linetwists caused by a rotating bag), but ZP PCs last much longer and dont require as much attention to their condition as F111 PCs do.

You can get the best of both worlds by buying a vented PC like the SkySnatch or a BASE PC. Those are ZP, but they are even more stable than an F111 PC because they are printed in a 3D shape and they are vented which makes them much more stable. The everyday standard skydiving PCs we use are cheap and basically just consist of two flat piece of fabric sewn together. That's not the best way to make a PC, but it's cheap which is why manufacturers in skydiving do it. In the BASE environment, the PCs are actually built with some engineering behind them because there is less room for equipment problems.

Edited August 4, 2019 by 20kN

On 8/3/2019 at 7:53 PM, 20kN said:

Actually fabric does play an important role in opening. It's certainly noticeable. 

Fair enough. Thank you for the correction and detailed explanation.

On 8/3/2019 at 5:53 PM, 20kN said:

That's not the best way to make a PC, but it's cheap which is why manufacturers in skydiving do it. In the BASE environment, the PCs are actually built with some engineering behind them because there is less room for equipment problems.

Not necessarily. PCs have been built that way for a long time because they work reliably and consistently. Traditional PC designs have been used in sky and BASE for decades with a clear record of success.

All that said, it's already been proven that you don't even need a PC, so whatever. 

https://jointheteem.com/friday-freakout-skydiving/friday-freakout-jimmy-pouchert-base-jumper-survives-no-pilot-chute/

5 hours ago, Bluhdow said:

PCs have been built that way for a long time because they work reliably and consistently.

But not as good as a 3D vented pilot chute does. Wind tunnel testing shows that you can improve the design of the PC and more than one company has had success in doing this. Squirrel talks about it in their video. Sure, there is a lot of marketing to get through, but the general concept of what they are talking about is valid:
 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by 20kN

It's valid but there is also a point of diminishing returns. I've built PC's like that but I've also jumped for years with out them. Is it worth it? Maybe in base? It's certainly necessary in some of the systems I work on but that's so far out side the skydiving envelope that I question whether it's relevant. 

 

Lee

I think it's way, way overkill in skydiving, to RiggerLee's point. 

In BASE, I think there's some merit in the terminal arena. But these PCs are still a bit controversial in the sub-terminal arena with mixed results being reported all the time. Mostly related to hesitation issues.

Won't see that in a marketing video.

(Disclaimer: I work for Apex BASE - therefore, conflict of interest.)