Welcome!

We're glad you are here. This is the place to ask for bag advice, help other people out, post reviews, and share photos and videos.

TOM BIHN Forums Statistics

Collapse

Topics: 14,531   Posts: 187,832   Members: 6,495   Active Members: 285
Welcome to our newest member, coorysmith.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aeronaut - but smaller....maybe??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    A smaller Aeronaut? Sign me up!

    I'm a satisfied Empire Builder owner, and I've been looking for the perfect travel bag to compliment it for a while. I've had my eyes on the Aeronaut, Tri-star and Western Flyer but none of them quite fit the bill. The Aeronaut is almost perfect but just a little too large for my needs. A "mini-Aeronaut" somewhere between the size of the Tri-star and Western Flyer would be perfect. If this can be done, I'll be the first in line to purchase one of the new "mini-Aeronauts".

    PS. It may be asking the impossible but it would be ideal if the "mini-Aeronaut" was just large enough to accommodate an Eagle Creek Garment Sleeve like shown in this video, minus the peripheral items of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pMEA...ailpage#t=165s
    Last edited by Novan Leon; 04-12-2011, 02:36 PM.

    Comment


      #32
      It seems that in the past there was an Aeronaut Breve (for shorter people). Just curious, how did the dimensions compare to the Aeronaut?
      Owner of Burnt Orange/Steel Daylight Briefcase , Burnt Orange/Steel Aeronaut 45, Black Dyneema/Wasabi Pilot, Crimson/Steel Western Flyer, Forest/Steel Zephyr, Olive/Cayenne Ristretto for iPad, Olive/Cork/Steel and Cardinal/Hemp/Steel Imago, Plum/Wasabi Side Effect, Nordic/Ultraviolet, Linen/Steel and Conifer/Steel SCB, Steel Breve, Plum/Black Swift, Steel FJN, and various packing cubes, organizer pouches, caches, and other odds and ends.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by wennefer View Post
        It seems that in the past there was an Aeronaut Breve (for shorter people). Just curious, how did the dimensions compare to the Aeronaut?
        Same dimensions, just the backpack straps were done a bit differently.

        Comment


          #34
          Aeronut? Shorter physical size, and shorter name.

          Comment


            #35
            Wow, August 2008 discussion all over again :-) (search for "Aeronette" if you want to see!)

            Originally posted by travelwkid View Post
            Can you please take into account Australian carry-on luggage dimension limits? :-)
            As others have suggested, I like the idea of only one end pocket for the smaller Aeronaut too.
            Definitely. Australian carry-on dimensions are typically 19x14x9 max, but a bag 19x13x8 would work very very well too and allow for stuffage expansion. I definitely like the layout and flexibility for packing in a bag of the Aeronaut design, which is why I was a very sad panda when the Tri-star came out, despite others being delighted with it.

            One end pocket and a big roomy section that zips exactly the way the aeronaut does. With a light-coloured inside (or the option for it).

            PLEASE don't, don't, DON'T make it 20 1/2" long or similar (as asked for in sojourner's thread); that is too long.
            Last edited by cpau; 05-01-2011, 05:00 AM.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by cpau View Post
              Wow, August 2008 discussion all over again :-) (search for "Aeronette" if you want to see!)



              Definitely. Australian carry-on dimensions are typically 19x14x9 max, but a bag 19x13x8 would work very very well too and allow for stuffage expansion. I definitely like the layout and flexibility for packing in a bag of the Aeronaut design, which is why I was a very sad panda when the Tri-star came out, despite others being delighted with it.

              One end pocket and a big roomy section that zips exactly the way the aeronaut does. With a light-coloured inside (or the option for it).

              PLEASE don't, don't, DON'T make it 20 1/2" long or similar (as asked for in sojourner's thread); that is too long.
              19x13x8 is approximately 32 liters in volume, which sounds ideal to me, especially with the cavernous "duffel" style bag that is the Aeronaut.

              Comment


                #37
                any updates on this? With the new colors coming out, I am tempted to pick up a Tri-Star, but if this is close, I'll wait...

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Just View Post
                  Same dimensions, just the backpack straps were done a bit differently.
                  How were the backpack straps different? I've been combing through archives to find a picture or detailed description . . .

                  And yet another vote for a smaller Aeronaut! I love the design of it, but I think it would look rather silly on my 5'0" frame.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by roadrunner View Post
                    any updates on this? With the new colors coming out, I am tempted to pick up a Tri-Star, but if this is close, I'll wait...
                    No updates yet. It could be out in four months, or four years. We'll see!
                    Have a question? @Darcy (to make sure I see it)

                    Current carry: testing new potential materials in the form of Original Large Shop Bags.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Darcy View Post
                      No updates yet. It could be out in four months, or four years. We'll see!
                      Lol, Ok I guess I'll forge ahead with the Tristar in the interim

                      Comment


                        #41
                        If the smaller Aeronaut existed 2 years ago it would have been my first bag but since I got my Aeronaut I have really come to love it with all it's crimson spaciousness. It's crimson like my heart, lol.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by marbenais View Post
                          How were the backpack straps different? I've been combing through archives to find a picture or detailed description . . .

                          And yet another vote for a smaller Aeronaut! I love the design of it, but I think it would look rather silly on my 5'0" frame.
                          @marbenais The straps on the Aeronaut Breve were set for a slightly smaller frame, so that the shoulder spacing of the straps feels a bit snugger. You can find most of the related discussions for this under the threads: a slender Aeronaut…an Aeronette?, Aeronaut Breve Colors, and Aeronaut Breve?. I've excerpted (below) one of the posts from the middle thread. By the way, those older posts all have additional links that won't show up underlined in the new forum format.

                          FWIW, I'm currently using a regular size Aeronaut, because my Aeronaut Breve has been "permanently adopted". When the Aeronaut first came out, the first production runs were for the Aeronaut, and it looked as though te Aeronaut Breve (and most of the color selections) might sell out in the pre-order stage. So I ordered a regular Aeronaut in addition to my pre-ordered Breve, and received it about two weeks before the Breve. One of the things I love about the Tom Bihn bag designs is how scalable they are to work well with different body sizes, and smaller frames in particular. I can't tell you how many times I've checked out bags in discussions at sites like OBOW (One Bag, One World) to find reviewer comments at eBags that they really wanted this bag to work for them, but it didn't, because they were 5'5" (followed by details of the various ways this didn't work out) or similar remark. HTH.

                          moriond

                          Originally posted by moriond View Post
                          Originally posted by Darcy View Post
                          Everyone -- even those 5'4" and under -- felt the Standard Aeronaut was just as comfortable as the Breve, so we've decided not to make the Breve again. The few Breves in Black are the last ones that will be available. The Aeronaut with Standard straps will continue to be available in Black, Steel, and Crimson.
                          I have both the standard Aeronaut and the Aeronaut Breve, and when I first read this comment I went back to compare them again used in backpack mode. Darcy, it's true that the standard Aeronaut is reasonably comfortable, even for someone who is 5'4", but the straps on the Breve are more comfortable for me. It's likely more a question of frame size than height, and it's not a big issue for only occasional use backpack mode, but I can tell the difference.

                          Here's some of the discussion excerpted from the original Aeronaut design thread from 3 years back:

                          Originally posted by moriond View Post
                          I also want something that works well for smaller, female, builds. Large backpacks often seem designed for people who have broad, flat backs.
                          Originally posted by eristick View Post
                          There are plenty of backpacks designed to distribute weight better for the narrower female back and shoulders, but they are all backpacker-style packs. This is more important to me if I were hiking -- it wouldn't be a major issue for me with this bag. Walking all day on uneven terrain is a whole different ballgame than walking a mile or two to the hotel from the train/bus station.
                          Originally posted by aakepley View Post
                          I think this is more than distributing weight better for the female body as some bags are physically too big for smaller people to carry. A maximally sized carry-on (22" by 14" by 9") is going to be too wide and too long for my body. It would be nice to see a petite version of this bag that would be a inch or so narrower and a couple of inches shorter. This would even be convenient for larger people traveling abroad as some international airlines limit carry-on size to 19" by 13" by 9" (particularly for travel that's not to or from the US) and its hard to find a bag here in the U.S. that meets these requirements.

                          (Note: For me at least, comfort is king. After schlepping my bags all the way around the world through more airports than I care to remember, I want a bag I can carry around for long periods of time and not regret it the next day.)
                          Here are also some early and later comments from users with smaller frames who used the standard Aeronaut.

                          Finally, there are some reference links in this recent post addressing possible size issues for a Brain Bag vs. Aeronaut used by someone 5'3". (You may want to also scroll up 2 messages to read the original post being addressed).

                          So, probably not a big difference, but I'm glad I have my Aeronaut Breve, too.

                          P.S. I also have the Western Flyer and I find the strap design of the Aeronaut more comfortable than the sling strap design used there. This is despite my comments about the great design of the original Buzz and its sling strap. You can probably see why I find the Aeronaut's straps more comfortable than the Western Flyer's if you look at the comparison Western Flyer vs. Aeronaut pictures at the One Bag, One World site. The last frame with the Aeronaut and its backpack straps compared to the Western Flyer with its sling strap shows that the back of the Aeronaut is more contoured. Incidentally, I agree with this review of the Western Flyer that its virtues include the fact that its rectangular shape is better for underseat storage on airplanes than other bags, so I didn't choose that bag on the basis of the comfort of its sling strap, and probably won't use it very often. For a more extreme response to the sling strap issue, see the next post in that Western Flyer review thread.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            I can understand the wish for a bag that fits European or Australian carry-on requirements, but just to play devil's advocate (and without any desire whatsoever to challenge my fellow forum members), why can't one simply under-pack the existing Aeronaut? The idea of a smaller, one-end-pocket Aeronaut is quite compelling, but is there any reason why one couldn't simply leave one end pocket empty? I'm just asking the question to find out if there is something I am missing in this discussion. I like having the option to go large or go small with the same bag, it simplifies life. Is there a compelling reason why a second Aeronaut style is necessary (that is, beyond the very compelling need for one more Tom Binh bag, which is sufficient in and of itself as a reason--I have been looking hard at both the Tri-Star and the WF just for this reason...)?

                            bb

                            Comment


                              #44
                              bbcamp: "why can't one simply under-pack the existing Aeronaut?" Good question. Example: the July 8 blog picture, "Going Up the Wudang Mountains with the Aeronaut (Photo by eVolcre)."

                              Comment


                                #45
                                You are missing the point

                                Asking why can't people under pack an Aeronaut misses the point, which is, most folks here just want an excuse to buy a new Tom Bihn bag.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X