Icarus Nano or PD Optimum reserves?

[Blumpkin 0]

What are your thoughts on the Icarus Nano or PD Optimum reserves?

[strife 0]

I have OPs in two of my rigs and tried to get a Nano in my new rig and one wasn't available in time. cost was a little bit cheaper and I've only heard some anecdotal statements about material thickness in the nano but not sure if that was just marketing.

[scottcave 0]

I replaced a PD126 (not Optimum) with a Nano 143 and had to shorten the closing loop by about 1/4".

[skydiverek 63]

Speed 2000. It is TSO'ed, and you can put size 190 into freebag for size 143.

http://www.paratec.de/en/products-parachutes/57-2/

[rifleman 70]

skydiverek

Speed 2000. It is TSO'ed, and you can put size 190 into freebag for size 143.

http://www.paratec.de/en/products-parachutes/57-2/

Are those pack volumes correct? Cos by the look of that I could fit a Speed 250 in my rig and have it still be a loose fit. The original reserve that was in it was a Raven II (218) and I was debating on whether to get an OP235 which has a similar pack volume, but looking at that I might just go for the Speed 250.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[skydiverek 63]

From a rigger who packed over 40 'Speed 2000' reserves:

"Speed 2000 150 is nearly packing as low as a 99 Smart Reserve, with a difference of 4 cu. in."

Please see this POST:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4613007#4613007

And this whole THREAD:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4610754#4610754

[Blumpkin 0]

I see this thread has been hijacked...... Im not interested in a speed reserve. Im inquiring about the icarus nano and PD optimum.

[mxk 1]

Optimum has higher maximum weight limits for all sizes. I'm about to order the 235, having also looked at Nano and Smart reserves. Not that I would expect any of these to fail, but it's nice to know that the your reserve is rated for an extra 40 lbs instead of 10.

[Blumpkin 0]

good to know, thanks for the info. Its nice to have someone who is on the same page with either the icarus or pd and not trying to sell me on some reserve I have never heard of.

[councilman24 37]

but maybe you should have heard of it. Especially if your looking for small volume.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Blumpkin 0]

thats great people, but I am not interested in the speed because of its pack volume. I am interested, like I said before...... in the nano or optimum.

[piisfish 140]

Because of their names ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[JeffCa 0]

Blumpkin

thats great people, but I am not interested in the speed because of its pack volume. I am interested, like I said before...... in the nano or optimum.

I'm appreciating learning about the Speed.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[voilsb 1]

I've packed and jumped an Optimum/160, Nano/160, and Speed 2000/190, all in a reserve tray built for a PD 143.

All packed easier than the PD 143 did, in the same container, both with and without an AAD. All 4 packed within 2lb of the same pull force.

Nano had the best flare, straight in and with front risers, but had very fast reserve-like openings.

Optimum had an excellent flare with a front riser approach, and a regular flare straight in. Also had the softest openings.

Speed had the steepest glide slope, but consequently had an excellent flare straight in. Brakes were set too short, so I experienced bucking on front risers.

Nano and Optimum had similar altitude loss in turns. Speed lost the most altitude in turns.

Brian

[lyosha 50]

skydiverek

Speed 2000. It is TSO'ed, and you can put size 190 into freebag for size 143.

http://www.paratec.de/en/products-parachutes/57-2/

Speed 2000 square footage is measured differently from PD/Icarus and is misleading. That 190 is substantially smaller than a 190 Opt or Nano. Anecdotal evidence suggests it may be smaller than 176 as well. Similar to how a Pilot 190 is larger than a Safire/Sabre2 190 because the square footage is measured differently.

You may think you're buying a 190, but really you're getting a 176 or maybe even 160. Someone should lay one on top of another on top of anohter and take some pictures.

[Blumpkin 0]

excellent info. this is the kind of info i am looking for. Thanks

[billvon 2,991]

>Speed 2000 square footage is measured differently from PD/Icarus and is
>misleading. That 190 is substantially smaller than a 190 Opt or Nano.

Sounds like the old "Safire 1 vs Safire 2" problem. The original Safires were downsized one size for marketing reasons (I never got that) so that a Safire 1 129 was a similar size as a Safire 2 119. In the case of reserves, people want small pack volumes, so claiming a larger area allows a significant marketing advantage.

Of course that's not good for skydivers if the resulting reserve is smaller than they expect, and does not give them the level of safety they expected.

[Deyan 36]

lyosha

***Speed 2000. It is TSO'ed, and you can put size 190 into freebag for size 143.

http://www.paratec.de/en/products-parachutes/57-2/

Speed 2000 square footage is measured differently from PD/Icarus and is misleading. That 190 is substantially smaller than a 190 Opt or Nano. Anecdotal evidence suggests it may be smaller than 176 as well. Similar to how a Pilot 190 is larger than a Safire/Sabre2 190 because the square footage is measured differently.


Can we reverse that and say that the canopy size info from PD and Icarus is misleading, giving the customers the wrong idea about their canopy size?! Because the PDR 176 is actually 189 sq.ft!

Quote

You may think you're buying a 190, but really you're getting a 176 or maybe even 160.

What you are getting is actually a 190 canopy measured according to the PIA TS-104.

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

What you are getting is actually a 190 canopy measured according to the PIA TS-104.

I didn't realize there was a published standard method that had an official PIA endorsement.

I'm interested to hear from anyone with info about this std. I guess I haven't been paying attention to this issue of how to measure, or perhaps I just thought that the difference of opinion on how to do it wasn't too significant. Are some/many mfgs fighting against the use of the std - choosing not to state what the size would be according to that std? I understand mfgs not wanting to explain the change - in effect have it look like their products have changed when they haven't. I wonder how old this std is and what the mfgs are going to do to adopt it, if anything.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[JohnMitchell 16]

Sounds like how Detroit used to "measure" and market horsepower ratings back in the muscle car days.

[Pobrause 6]

http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/packvol.pdf

How to measure size and volume of different canopies?
PD makes some good points for those interested to read a bit more

-------------------------------------------------------

To absent friends

[gunneroy 0]

Blumpkin

What are your thoughts on the Icarus Nano or PD Optimum reserves?

I know of some Icarus sponsored athletes that were told to get PDR/OP's over nano's by the company.(by NZ)
Make of that what you will.

[Deyan 36]

gunneroy

***What are your thoughts on the Icarus Nano or PD Optimum reserves?

I know of some Icarus sponsored athletes that were told to get PDR/OP's over nano's by the company.(by NZ)
Make of that what you will.

Icarus Canopies sponsored or NZ Aerosports sponsored? There's a big difference!

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,991]

>What you are getting is actually a 190 canopy measured according to the PIA TS-104.

Well, IIRC TS-104 was just a study, not a "standard" or anything - and was intended primarily to measure canopy pack volume, not area. All it says about area is "measure chord and span" which of course is only really accurate for rectangular parachutes (it was written in 1987.)

One of the problems with measuring area is that there are so many ways to do it. You can measure actual canopy area; the area you'd get if you put it down on the floor and measured it. You can ignore elliptical planforms and just measure chord x span, which is the least accurate but most repeatable method. You can account for the elliptical planform by several methods (of varying accuracy, but all of them are reasonably close.)

You can also do projected area, which is the area of the canopy's shadow. It's an important distinction because projected area is more of a performance measurement; it measures the amount of airfoil able to produce lift that opposes your weight, and thus tells you more about how the canopy flies. However it's not very repeatable; change the line length and you change the projected area. Even collapsing the slider vs. not causes a change in projected area.

None of which matters particularly much as long as everyone is using the same method. No one gets a 120 square foot parachute because they need exactly 120 square feet; they get it because the 109 they tried was too fast and the 135 they tried was too boring. As long as those three numbers (109, 120, 135) remain relatively stable across parachutes, people can use guidelines like that.

[Deyan 36]

billvon

Well, IIRC TS-104 was just a study, not a "standard" or anything - and was intended primarily to measure canopy pack volume, not area.

That's correct Bill!

But as far as I know, all of the canopies listed in that document were measured the same way in order to get the most accurate info on how big/small certain canopies are in regard to packing volume and surface area.

Quote

All it says about area is "measure chord and span" which of course is only really accurate for rectangular parachutes

Since we are talking about reserve canopies here, I'd say the chart is quite accurate.

My point was, everybody is saying that certain canopy is smaller than what's written on the label because is measured differently than the PD canopies! Well, PD it's not a standard
The canopy is as big as the company that made it say it is! The only way to find out if you like it is.....jump it!

Cheers

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen