Tempo packing volume

[Stealth 0]

I've heard a lot about Tempo reserve small packing volume. Is it true ?
Do really Tempo 150 (293 cu inch) takes equal volume as PD-R 126(296 cu in) and can Tempo fit in the same container ?

[miller 0]

From having packed both of the reserves mentioned, I'd say volume wise, they're pretty darn close. Depending on your rigger, and the specific rig, I'd say that you can fit a tempo 150 into most rigs that are made for a pd126.

If you're goal is to have the smallest rig with the biggest reserve, be careful because two things may happen: You may start getting outside of the manufacturer's recommendations, and it may not necssarily look good or be safe.

Also, if possible, demo both a Tempo 150 and a PD126, and then make the decision. Buy your container size based on what reserve you feel best about. Don't buy a small container and then try to shoe-horn a big reserve into it. It will get ugly, and probably uncomfortable.

I've personally owned two different rigs made for pd113's and 107 mains, and yes they're very small. However, the last rig that I purchased was a size bigger, even though I was still using a pd113 and a 107. I did this just because it was thinner off my back, much softer, and a tad easier to pack my main.

Mike

[PhreeZone 20]

Something to think about is mid last year or so PISA started to add span wise reenforcement to the Tempos and that increased the pack volume somewhat. So an old Tempo 150 packs smaller then a new Tempo 150. I think the Tempo 150 still packs smaller then a PD 143 or Raven -M 135.

The one thing I've wondered is how can they get lower pack volumes.. Is it that they found a trick the other makers don't know about or are the other makers just adding too much reenforcement/PISA less then everyone else. Anyone care to weigh in on their opinion on this?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Stealth 0]

I going to downsize from 150 to a 135 sqf main, but I don't want 120 sqf reserve because i'm not sure i can land it succesfully and (!) because my home DZ have small plain landing area and much trees and obstacles around.
So i think 150 sqf reserve will brings me farther and lands me softer.

That is the reason to ask about packing volume.
I want 135 main and bigger reserve, and hope such rig will have good look

I have no possibilities to demo any of the reserve.
I'll figure my choice on the opinions only.

[nicknitro71 0]

Here is a e-mail I got from Heather @ Wings:

Hi Nick,

Lately, many riggers have been telling us that they could pack Tempos into smaller reserve trays than we've typically assigned them. (for instance a W-8 for a Tempo 150 and a 135 main, instead of a W-10) So in your case I would go with a W-8 container. I have a 135 main in my W-8 and would go with a W-7 if I planned on going down to a 120 anytime soon. If you plan on keeping the 135 for a long time (with the Tempo 150) stick with a W-8. If you want to go to a 120, choose the W-7.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[MarkM 0]

Quote

The one thing I've wondered is how can they get lower pack volumes.. Is it that they found a trick the other makers don't know about or are the other makers just adding too much reenforcement/PISA less then everyone else. Anyone care to weigh in on their opinion on this?

I think PISA and PD use different measuring systems on their canopies. A Tempo 150 packs smaller than a PD 143, possibly because the sizes really aren't so different. On the flip side I believe the Tempo is heat treated, so it performs a little more like a ZP. So even if you bought a PD and Tempo that really were the same size, they'd probably jump differently.

Please note the heavy use of thinks, possiblies and I believes in the above. These are things I've heard before and I'd love for someone with more knowledge than me to clarify the differences between these canopies.

[Merrick 0]

I'd definately say yes... depending on the rigger. My wife has a Mirage made for a pd126r... when we bought the rig it had a Raven Dash-M 109 in it that fit very snugly. After jumping that for a while and deciding it was way to small for comfort, I ordered her a brand new tempo 150 (one of the new ones w/the spanwise reinforcement). Some riggers took one look at it, said it wouldn't fit and wouldn't even try... Finally I took it to the Augger Inn Rigging loft at Raeford and they got it in there no problem. It's hard as a rock and REALLY wants to come out, but it looks neat and she says it feels fine. Hope this helps!

Blues!

Merrick

[riggerrob 643]

We are really discussing two issues here: different construction methods and different measuring methods.
Different construction methods result in different pack volumes. For example, Older Tempos and Raven-F to Raven-J were the smallest packing reserves on the market because they used Spectra lines (aka. Microline) and a minimum of reinforcing tapes.
Raven-M series packed maybe 4% smaller because their spanwise bottom skin construction method resulted in slightly less pack volume.
On the other hand, adding reinforcing tapes to the bottom skin increases pack volume. Tempos pack volume increased maybe 5% when they added spanwise reinforcing tapes to the bottom skin last year. Performance Designs' reserves have always been bulkier because they have always had spanwise reinforcing tapes.
My FFE Amigo 172 is the bulkiest 170-ish reserve on the market because it has lots of reinforcing tapes and thicker (1,000 pound) suspension lines than any other sport reserve.
Parachutes de France's Techno series of reserves pack the smallest of all because they use Spectra suspension line instead of tapes for reinforcement.

Type of fabric has little affect on pack volume since fabric is the least bulky component in a canopy and all the canopy manufacturers use 0-3 cfm fabric woven to the same standard as F-111. Mind you, quality of fabric varies from one finishing mill to the next. Fabric woven in South Africa (Gelvenor) and Britain (Perseverance) has consistently straighter weave than fabric from some of the American weaving mills. At first glance 0-3 cfm fabric from Gelvenor looks like 0-P fabric. Gelvenor spokesmen brag that their fabric is consistently 0.5 cfm when it goes out the door. I suspect that Gelvenor's fabric will retain its low prorosity longer because Gelvenor depends upon calendaring more than coatings applied late in the process.
The other issue that affects reserve size is measuring method. Every manufacturer invents a slightly different measuring method, so customers end up trying to compare apples with oranges. Only a few manufacturers (i.e. Para-Flite and PISA) use the old PIA measuring method. P.D. uses something called "projected area" which roughly equates to bottom skin area. When you try to compare the two different measuring methods, a P.D. reserve has about 10% more finished surface area than a PISA reserve. On the other hand, I suspect that Precision measures fabric before they sew it, so their canopies shrink about 5% when they are sewn together. So what P.D calls a PR126 has about 135 square feet when measured by PIA methods, a PISA Tempo 120 has 120 square feet (PIA) and a Precision Micro Raven 120 has about 115 square feet (PIA).
Are you thoroughly confused by now?
The only way to compare apples with apples is to study the canopy volume charts published by PIA. Those charts also list manufacturer's stated area and PIA measurements of area, which are rarely the same.

[billvon 2,991]

>I think PISA and PD use different measuring systems on their
> canopies.

Do not trust canopy manufacturer pack volumes. They all use different criteria. The only reliable source is the container mfr, since they have experience actually fitting the thing into the container.

A reference from one such rig manufacturer:

http://people.qualcomm.com/billvon/canopy_vols.html