Reliability of canopies with Flares rather than Direct Line Attach?

[pchapman 279]

In general, canopies using flares are less common than those with direct line attachment. But both are considered acceptable in skydiving. I'd like to dig a little further into the issue to learn more, because there are some features that seem like they might make canopies with flares slightly less reliable.

I've long wondered about canopies with flares, well before the hot issue at the moment about a structural failure on a reserve, apparently of a design using flares. (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2177335;)

Some possible issues:

-- SLIDER STOPS ON FLARES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO ENTANGLE WITH LINES:
As I wrote in that other thread, is a slider stop which is a lump at the pointed end of a flare more likely to entangle with lines, than a stop that is embedded within a stabilizer on a direct line attachment canopy?

On the latter, the stabilizer and associated fabric tapes are still flexible so it isn't impossible for a line to wrap, but it seems to be a better design in that particular regard.

-- FLARES SEEM TO BE LIKE PACKING WITH THE SLIDER PARTIALLY DOWN: Flares (and their slider stops at the end cells) keep the slider quite a few inches away from the canopy in the pack job. This would seem to make it harder for the slider to control the initial stages of opening, and harder to tune the design for good, consistent opening characteristics, although obviously plenty of canopies do work OK with flares. It might be OK for big F-111 but get tougher for small zero-P canopies. (I just looked at a fuzzy photo of the Flight Concepts high performance canopy, the Rage. I can't tell whether it has flares, but if so, they must be tiny ones!)

It certainly isn't the same as a sloppy pack job with a slider a few inches off the stops, for the design with flares still keeps the slider in a consistent position on the four line groups, promoting a symmetrical opening.

-- FLARES COMPLICATE RESERVE PACK JOBS slightly, at least in relative terms for those who are more used to direct line attachment canopies. The flares effectively extend the length of the canopy, sometimes making it harder to get the S-folds to neatly shorten the canopy to go into the freebag. Also, after the S folds, the grommets don't end up near the base of the pack job, but are pushed up into the pack job by whatever length there is in the flares. (Glide Path and Flight Concepts manuals that I recall seeing, show pulling the canopy tail down to the bottom of the flares when cocooning the pack job, before S-folding it.) Both because the grommets are buried in the pack job, and because they may be at the fold point of the first S-fold, it becomes harder to control the slider's position. (Of course, riggers have to control the pack job, whether or not they consider a particular pack job easy.)

-- FLARES COMPLICATE MAIN PRO-PACK PACK JOBS: This is a minor point. The added length of the flare just makes it harder, for a given size canopy, to reach down inside the canopy and flake it.

-- FLARES MAY INTERFERE WITH SLIDER MOVEMENT: I've seen some main canopies where the slider stops are arranged so that when the slider is tight up against the canopy, parts of some of the flares do or can go through the slider grommets. To what degree does this increased bulk going through the grommets increase the chance a mal with the slider stuck up on the flare with some sort of tension knot?

I recall a Manta canopy mal with the slider hung up, that was blamed on a packer who admitted being frustrated and jamming the slider up against the canopy very hard, apparently getting some of the flares into the grommets.

While it may be comforting to have as little bulk as possible going through slider grommets, Paraflite did have reserves (with direct line attachment) that used slider grommets much smaller than the regular #8. So big grommets aren't considered the only way to do things.

I don't have any big bias against flares, but am more comfortable with direct line attachment canopies. I realize that canopies with flares do seem to allow a more gradual transfer of loads from lines to canopy, with less point loading to deal with. Despite any structural advantages there, using large flares does still result in significant increased bulk.

Maybe jumpers with more 1980's experience, when canopies with flares were more common on main canopies, might be able to comment on whether flares were seen as a complicating factor or not.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

SLIDER STOPS ON FLARES MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO ENTANGLE WITH LINES:

The lines with slider stops have the stop at the bottom of the stablizer just like every other canopy. The flair has nothing to do with it.

It seems you may be making an issue where there isn't one.

See attachment

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 279]

Quote

The lines with slider stops have the stop at the bottom of the stablizer just like every other canopy.

Thanks, I failed to really consider how most of the end cell line attachments are covered by the stabilizers, on most canopies with flares.

Only SOME end cell flares aren't covered and protected.

E.g, No stabilizers at all in photo 1 of a current Flight Concepts reserve. And no stabilizer protection for the A-line flares of a Glide Path canopy in photo 2. The colors make it apparent how the end cell flares are still there but covered by the stabs for the B,C, & D lines.

[JerryBaumchen 1,371]

You are correct; I had forgotten that the FCI reserves (and Amigos I believe) are the only reserves without stabilizers.

Good call.

Jerry

[riggerrob 643]

It's odd that Glide Path/Flight Concepts introduced this line attachment method circa 1984 - and FFE has been building similar reserves since 1993 - and this is the first instance of lines entangling with slider stops.
Odd!
I know that my FFE Amigo 172 reserve has deployed quite nicely, twice.
Similarly, GP/FC have sold thousands of Manta student mains - probably the most popular student main on the planet - and this is the first report of a malfunction related to slider stops.
Sure I have repaired plenty of frayed flares on Mantas, but the fraying reflected general wear and tear on the rest of the canopy.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

And no stabilizer protection for the A-line flares of a Glide Path canopy in photo 2. The colors make it apparent how the end cell flares are still there but covered by the stabs for the B,C, & D lines.

The slider stops for the A line is at the bottom of the flare and for the B, C and D lines they are at the bottom of the stabilizer.

I do not have a FC reserve available but I would assume that the slider stops are at the bottom of the flairs also.

I have 1500 to 2000 jumps on a Sharpchuter and have never had a problem with the flairs pulling through the slider grommets.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggermick 7]

Quote

In general, canopies using flares are less common than those with direct line attachment. But both are considered acceptable in skydiving. I'd like to dig a little further into the issue to learn more, because there are some features that seem like they might make canopies with flares slightly less reliable.







The main reason flares came back in to vogue was a patent infringement judgement against Mike Fury and his then company Django (later Glide Path) by Steve Snyder and his company Para Filte. Snyder held the patent in direct line attachment and many companys payed him a royalty to use the technology, Mike didn't want to pony up and was conseqently sued. When he lost the suit and folded Django, glide path rose from the ashes and started using Dominia (SP?)Jalberts old flare design from the Para Foil accuracy canopy. As far as problems with flares go, they are few and far between VS how many jumps have been made on canopies with flares. I use Amigo 134's for my rigs and used them during drop testing with excellent results.

Mick.

• Quote