billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,998
>and is it possible for a 190 lb person to fly/land a PD 126R...
Of course. 190 lb people have landed 89 sq ft parachutes; there's no reason that, given enough practice, they couldn't land a new F111 126 sq ft parachute, if they remain current on that parachute and replace it when it gets even a little porous.
By the same token it is unlikely that most people will remain current enough on a tiny F111 reserve to be able to safely use it for a reserve. I recommend you choose a reserve that you can land _now_ - that way when you have more experience, the larger reserve will give you that much more margin of safety.
>i'm planing to have it for a very long time. that is why i'm buying
>container the smallest it can currently be for me . . .
To me, "the smallest it can currently be for me" means using canopies you can safely land _now._ Take the smallest 7-cell you are _comfortable_ landing, that's a good reserve size. (NOT the smallest 7-cell you have survived landing.)
From personal experience, my first reserve was a PD160R (180lbs exit wt.) I used that for a few years; two landings under it with no problems. I jumped a Tri-135 for a few years, and thus when I got my latest rig I sized it for a PD-143 since I was completely comfortable with a 7-cell that size. (Plus I have a few square feet of margin if I'm not landing under ideal conditions.)
Of course. 190 lb people have landed 89 sq ft parachutes; there's no reason that, given enough practice, they couldn't land a new F111 126 sq ft parachute, if they remain current on that parachute and replace it when it gets even a little porous.
By the same token it is unlikely that most people will remain current enough on a tiny F111 reserve to be able to safely use it for a reserve. I recommend you choose a reserve that you can land _now_ - that way when you have more experience, the larger reserve will give you that much more margin of safety.
>i'm planing to have it for a very long time. that is why i'm buying
>container the smallest it can currently be for me . . .
To me, "the smallest it can currently be for me" means using canopies you can safely land _now._ Take the smallest 7-cell you are _comfortable_ landing, that's a good reserve size. (NOT the smallest 7-cell you have survived landing.)
From personal experience, my first reserve was a PD160R (180lbs exit wt.) I used that for a few years; two landings under it with no problems. I jumped a Tri-135 for a few years, and thus when I got my latest rig I sized it for a PD-143 since I was completely comfortable with a 7-cell that size. (Plus I have a few square feet of margin if I'm not landing under ideal conditions.)
grega 0
thank you all for all your advices, none offense taken, from those who said that 126 is simply to small for someone 210 lbs out the door with 250 jumps.
Actually all i was trying to do with this post is, that you help me kill that little voice in my head "get a 126
". The numbers are just to obvious. Unfortunately that voice is still lurking in my head, but i wont listen to it for at least another 1500 jumps.
So i'll ask every skydiver in my country i know, for a reserve and try to find PD 160 and 143 here, to test them.
I already landed a reserve 170 and it was ok. I'll try PD 143 also and if i find it safe enough (not too fast), i'll get one.
thanks
Actually all i was trying to do with this post is, that you help me kill that little voice in my head "get a 126
". The numbers are just to obvious. Unfortunately that voice is still lurking in my head, but i wont listen to it for at least another 1500 jumps.
So i'll ask every skydiver in my country i know, for a reserve and try to find PD 160 and 143 here, to test them.
I already landed a reserve 170 and it was ok. I'll try PD 143 also and if i find it safe enough (not too fast), i'll get one.
thanks
"George just lucky i guess!"
Spy38W 0
QuoteBecause most reserves are retired before their porosity gets to the point where it's an issue.
**cough, cough**
QuoteThe raven-MZ reserve from Precision has a ZP topskin; it does not fly appreciably differently than the F111 raven, but will maintain its performance longer. If you anticipate a lot of jumps on the reserve (i.e. you will use it for rig testing or competition CRW) it might be a good idea.
So, basically, you're saying that new (or low jump, as in a reserve) F111 will perform as well as ZP?
Sorry for my ignorance, my only experience with F111 is from back on student status/reserve rides.
--
Hook high, flare on time
>So, basically, you're saying that new (or low jump, as in a reserve)
> F111 will perform as well as ZP?
Riggerrob wrote this post concerning porosity in this thread
If the better 0-3cfm fabric is almost as good as ZP (@ 0.5cfm), why wouldn't the performance be the same?
BTW, does anyone know what the tolerance is for ZP fabric? It probably wont be _really_ ZP... but what do I know?
Erno
> F111 will perform as well as ZP?
Riggerrob wrote this post concerning porosity in this thread
Quote
The standard for new F-111 fabric is 0 to 3 cubic feet per minute. The better mills -like Gelvenor - are consistently producing fabric that measures 0.5 cfm.
I am guessing that landings will start to suffer when porosity approaches 4 or 5 cfm.
Perhaps we should ask a major manufacturer like P.D. or Precision.
If the better 0-3cfm fabric is almost as good as ZP (@ 0.5cfm), why wouldn't the performance be the same?
BTW, does anyone know what the tolerance is for ZP fabric? It probably wont be _really_ ZP... but what do I know?
Erno
billvon 2,998
>but Packin' Cathy told me at WFFC (she imparted a lot of advice on
> me as she tighted my Reflex poptop) that ZP on reserves was EVIL
> because "ZP fails on the creases, while F-111 only fails on the
> seams."
Not true, at least inasmuch as ZP tends to fail more often than F111 on creases. From George Galloway:
------------------
> ...also,,zp tends to rip farther once started...
The above statement is simply Not True
The truth is, parachute fabric which is coated to zero porosity has more
than double the tear resistance of non-coated fabric. There has been
some misinformation spread around about this in the past, so I will
refer you to the specifications for the most popular ZP fabric in the
world (brand name Soar-Coat) which can be found at
http://www.perftex.com/milpara.htm
--------------------
> He makes the statement that ZP isn't a good material to use
> for reserve
> parachutes. His reasoning is that ZP material unlike f111
> once it starts to tear (as upon opening) will have the tendency to
> continue to rip, whereas f111 is
> rip stop and will generally contain the rip/tear to a small area.
James, this is a common misconception, even among many high time jumpers,
unfortunately.
F-111 was a particular brand of parachute fabric which has not been produced
in the last decade. Today's fabrics are much better than the old F-111, but
no parachute fabric has ever been particularly strong in the Tear Resistance
category.
The tear strength for brand new "Reserve Canopy Material" is only 5 lbs,
even right off the roll. If you take the same roll of fabric and put a ZP
coating on it, the tear strength goes up to about 18 lbs, so in that regard
the ZP fabric is more than 3 times as strong as the uncoated fabric.
The term "Rip Stop" has more to do with the weave pattern of the fabric than
its tear properties. The term "Ripstop" has been misunderstood for a long
time. Although a rip in a parachute is difficult to initiate (due to the
high Tensile Strength of the fabric) once a tear does get initiated, it will
usually travel along the grain of the fabric with very little effort to the
first seam. In the evrnt of catastrophic failure, the tear will then turn
downseam or upseam to the nearest reinforcement tape, but will seldom
"cross" a seam. Never say never.
> me as she tighted my Reflex poptop) that ZP on reserves was EVIL
> because "ZP fails on the creases, while F-111 only fails on the
> seams."
Not true, at least inasmuch as ZP tends to fail more often than F111 on creases. From George Galloway:
------------------
> ...also,,zp tends to rip farther once started...
The above statement is simply Not True
The truth is, parachute fabric which is coated to zero porosity has more
than double the tear resistance of non-coated fabric. There has been
some misinformation spread around about this in the past, so I will
refer you to the specifications for the most popular ZP fabric in the
world (brand name Soar-Coat) which can be found at
http://www.perftex.com/milpara.htm
--------------------
> He
> for reserve
> parachutes. His
> once it starts to tear (as upon opening) will have the tendency to
> continue to rip, whereas f111 is
> rip stop and will generally contain the rip/tear to a small area.
James, this is a common misconception, even among many high time jumpers,
unfortunately.
F-111 was a particular brand of parachute fabric which has not been produced
in the last decade. Today's fabrics are much better than the old F-111, but
no parachute fabric has ever been particularly strong in the Tear Resistance
category.
The tear strength for brand new "Reserve Canopy Material" is only 5 lbs,
even right off the roll. If you take the same roll of fabric and put a ZP
coating on it, the tear strength goes up to about 18 lbs, so in that regard
the ZP fabric is more than 3 times as strong as the uncoated fabric.
The term "Rip Stop" has more to do with the weave pattern of the fabric than
its tear properties. The term "Ripstop" has been misunderstood for a long
time. Although a rip in a parachute is difficult to initiate (due to the
high Tensile Strength of the fabric) once a tear does get initiated, it will
usually travel along the grain of the fabric with very little effort to the
first seam. In the evrnt of catastrophic failure, the tear will then turn
downseam or upseam to the nearest reinforcement tape, but will seldom
"cross" a seam. Never say never.
billvon 2,998
>So, basically, you're saying that new (or low jump, as in a reserve)
>F111 will perform as well as ZP?
Performance under a new F111 will be _similar_ to ZP. (Note that no one really uses F111 any more; it's become a term like Xerox that everyone just uses to mean low-porosity ripstop nylon.)
>F111 will perform as well as ZP?
Performance under a new F111 will be _similar_ to ZP. (Note that no one really uses F111 any more; it's become a term like Xerox that everyone just uses to mean low-porosity ripstop nylon.)
Spy38W 0
QuotePerformance under a new F111 will be _similar_ to ZP. (Note that no one really uses F111 any more; it's become a term like Xerox that everyone just uses to mean low-porosity ripstop nylon.)
Ok, correction, reserve parachute material. Thanks much BV
--
Hook high, flare on time
Because most reserves are retired before their porosity gets to the point where it's an issue. The raven-MZ reserve from Precision has a ZP topskin; it does not fly appreciably differently than the F111 raven, but will maintain its performance longer. If you anticipate a lot of jumps on the reserve (i.e. you will use it for rig testing or competition CRW) it might be a good idea.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites