pchapman 279
While the OP was probably just thinking about typical mains you buy, as for rounds:
Remember that Poynter was talking about "malfunctions" on rounds including temporary partial inversions.
From a jumper point of view, there may be no mal at all. From an engineering point of view, it is not a properly controlled opening. And as speeds increase, damage to the canopy is more likely to occur.
I'm also not sure to what degree Poynter was taking into account diapers, so at least the skirt starts out more aligned than for canopy-first deployment, which should reduce but not eliminate uneven inflation at the skirt.
This doesn't solve the round vs square reliability debate but I think it isn't quite as dire for rounds as first presented.
I think I'll start a thread in Gear & Rigging on round openings, particularly on experiences with round reserves in the old days.
Remember that Poynter was talking about "malfunctions" on rounds including temporary partial inversions.
From a jumper point of view, there may be no mal at all. From an engineering point of view, it is not a properly controlled opening. And as speeds increase, damage to the canopy is more likely to occur.
I'm also not sure to what degree Poynter was taking into account diapers, so at least the skirt starts out more aligned than for canopy-first deployment, which should reduce but not eliminate uneven inflation at the skirt.
This doesn't solve the round vs square reliability debate but I think it isn't quite as dire for rounds as first presented.
I think I'll start a thread in Gear & Rigging on round openings, particularly on experiences with round reserves in the old days.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuote[reply
"The main problem with round canopies is reliability. Rounds malfunction a very high percentage of the time." (section 6.25, page 235)
This is not correct
Wait a minute! Poynter says it, it must be true!
This is sort of like arguing over the command qualities of Napoleon vs. Patton, but:
The mil-surp "cheapo" rounds that were jumped in the 60s & 70s were very reliable. And FWIW, packing them was a cinch (esp. w/a girl in a tube top holding tension. But I digress.). The fewer modifications, the more reliable. Reefed (staged?) with a bag or a sleeve, more reliable than un-reefed/un-staged.
That's why even after PC-class "hi-performance" rounds had been around for a good while (like mid-late 70s) the culture was to keep new freefall students on cheapos because they were so unlikely to mal even in the most wildly unstable deployments. (I tested that very theory myself on at least a dozen jumps. Proved it to be spot-on.
) That and the fact that DZOs could pick up a gaggle of jumpable mil-surp stuff for a song, but whatever.
The higher performance PC-class canopies, with lots of mods, stabilizers, crown lines, etc. were more highly engineered, thus they had more potential failure points, thus they needed more care when packing, and were more sensitive to an unstable deployment than cheapos were, thus they did have a higher malfunction rate than cheapos jumped under equivalent conditions.
So there were rounds, and there were rounds.
drjump 0
Just don't get the iron too hot!
QuoteQuoteI don't think its so much to do with the canopy, but rather with who's packing it, how they're doing it, their body position on deployment, and how much care they take of their equipment.
Sorry, did I open a tin of worms?
No just a can.
what do you know with your 75 tandems anyway!?
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda
texmex 0
First i cant believe that people actually started naming canopies as if there is one canopy above all else!! Ridiculous.
The one canopy that has the least amount of cutaway potential is any canopy that is cared for, packed properly, and opens over the back of someone in good body position.
Pack neat, be stable when deploying, and you'll have long long cutaway free streaks.
I mean, for someone to actually be ableto claim that one canopy will not mal up as much as the next is just ridic.
The one canopy that has the least amount of cutaway potential is any canopy that is cared for, packed properly, and opens over the back of someone in good body position.
Pack neat, be stable when deploying, and you'll have long long cutaway free streaks.
I mean, for someone to actually be ableto claim that one canopy will not mal up as much as the next is just ridic.
riggerrob 643
QuoteQuoteWhat main skydiving canopy, in your opinion, is the least likely to malfunction?
A round main.
..................................................................................
Maybe a netted T-10, with its original MIL-SPEC direct bag, static-line etc., but all modern ram-air canopies are more reliable than rounds.
I only have 1.5 jumps on Para-Commander-like canopies. Their complex stabilizers required precise folding to avoid tangles, which is why Para-Commanders and early squares were never terribly reliable.
Hint: I suffered 3 malfunctions during 70 jumps with round mains (C-8, C-9, T-10, CT-1, MFP, etc.).
I only made 1.5 jumps on Para-Commander-like canopies. Thier complex stabilizers required precise folding or they tangled. Which is why Para-Commanders and first-generation squares suffered the worst malfunction rate of any canopies.
In comparison, I suffered 4 malfunctions during 2,000 jumps on sport square canopies. The first malfunction was caused by a rigging error with the main container, so the main canopy never had a chance to "do its stuff." My second malfunction involved a novel packing method. My last two of malfunctions were under tiny sport canopies with reputations for "spinning up."
So if chose a medium-sized sport main - and maintain it well - your chance of malfunctions is tiny.
This is not correct
Wait a minute! Poynter says it, it must be true!
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239