PD Canopy Numbers

[kallend 2,146]

What goes around comes around. When IBM was industry leader in computing, they set the standards and others ignored them at their own risk. Microsoft does the same now. GM used to do it in the auto industry, and US Steel used to do it in the steel industry.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rigging65 0]

Quote

I would think that you know me well enough by now to know I am all about saftey.

If you choose to count yourself in with PD, than I would have to say that by not posting the information you are, in fact, not all about safety. If you disagree, then maybe you can convince them to release documentation? I'll be there right next to you asking them for it!

You are, at least partially, defined by the company you keep (and defend), Ron. Here's a great chance to improve safety for everyone, no?

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[Ron 10]

Quote

If you choose to count yourself in with PD, than I would have to say that by not posting the information you are, in fact, not all about safety.

Like the good Dr. said...The industry leader sets the standard in most areas. I don't work for PD, but I do jump almost only PD products. While I think there should be a standard who is to say which way is right?

For years the Mustang I drove had a 305ci...Now its a 4.6L.

Quote

You are, at least partially, defined by the company you keep (and defend), Ron. Here's a great chance to improve safety for everyone, no?

And I support ONE standard...But I am not going to say which one. I don't work for PD, or PIA....So maybe one needs to talk to the other?

But PD having the lions share of the market has the right to set the standards in my opinion.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rigging65 0]

Quote

Like the good Dr. said...The industry leader sets the standard in most areas. I don't work for PD, but I do jump almost only PD products. While I think there should be a standard who is to say which way is right?

Cool! So now all we have to do is get PD to release their info...which they haven't been willing to do for the last 6 years that I've been asking them...

I support a single method as well (obviously) and I could care less who's it is. It's my personal opinion that its almost arbitrary anyway, so it really doesn't matter if you're jumping a 135 that is actually 170 square feet...as long as every 135 is 170 sq. ft. Jumpers will figure out what works for them and they'll adapt...but they can't do that if everyone is on different pages. That goes for pack volume too!

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[propilot 0]

So what came of this? Has PD revealed their methods yet?


Im interested...because i was advised to buy a reserve that is quite small (its a PD) on the basis that its actually bigger when compared to a similar advertised size of another company....

[cruzlite 0]

The info you're kooking for;
go to ParaGear's site...
on the left, to;
parachutes, PD, reserves...
scroll down to;
General info, click 'canopy size chart PDF'
you will find reserves on the right...
PD's are all in normal type, which means the numbers are from the PIA Tech. Specs., etc.
(Bold type means Mfrs. Specs.)
I'm seeing about 8-9% diference (126r - 137sq ft)

The PIA TS 104.13 was accepted in 1995
(Listed as volume - also has area)
I know of no updates.
Link to page;
http://www.pia.com/piapubs/archive_documents/tech_stds/ts-index.html
Lu7k,
D

Edit to add;
Notice the address of the PIA is 3833 / (PG is 3839)

[Rdutch 0]

Quote

Quote

.
He had no idea that canopies were measured differently, in fact most jumpers at the DZ didn't know till after this guy broke his leg.

See how it can be an issue

So he did this on his first jump on that canopy? I doubt the mesuring standard had much to do with this, instead his desire to downsize to fast, combined with his inexperience. If the canopy was too small for him to safely fly, he would have known it after a jump or two, if he continued to fly it, then nothing is to blame but him.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

• Quote

[Ron 10]

Quote

So he did this on his first jump on that canopy?

4th jump I think.

Quote

I doubt the mesuring standard had much to do with this, instead his desire to downsize to fast, combined with his inexperience

For him yes...However he was told that he would be ok since it was only one size smaller. That is where the sizing issue came into it. People who didn't know that it was a 135...Told him he would be fine.

They were wrong about the size...He *might* have been ok under a 150. But he was in no way ok under a 135.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpwally 0]

Sadly this issue will continue to be a grey area,,,,,,manftrs probably don't see much to gain to put much effort into it,,,,,thats why this forum shine's...wally

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[Kolla 0]

Hey there!
I am still prodding John for something in writing, but he's had his hands full lately.

Thanks for keeping the topic going though - as soon as I have a good description from John I'll add to this thread.

Blue ones!
kolla

Blue Skies Magazine

[riggerrob 643]

Kolla,

Keep the pressure on Bill to publish numbers, measuring methods, etc.

When my 200 pound boss started spouting Aerodyne's marketing BS about why it was okay for him to jump a Smart 125 vs. his previous Tempo 135, my eyes just glazed over and I wandered off.

I am so tired of numbers written by marketing types.

[Paulie30uk 0]

From a PIA point of view, is a Sabre2 135 really 135sq ft or is it closer to 144sq ft.

Also, how come all the Stiletto canopies according to PIA is sized "correctly" i.e. a stiletto 135 according to PIA is 135sq ft

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

From a PIA point of view, is a Sabre2 135 really 135sq ft or is it closer to 144sq ft.

Also, how come all the Stiletto canopies according to PIA is sized "correctly" i.e. a stiletto 135 according to PIA is 135sq ft

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because the numbers published by Performance Designs are written by marketing, not engineering. P.D.'s measuring method is roughly equivalent to bottom skin area.
As for sizes of individual models, I would have to refer to a PIA chart, however, PIA's measuring methods do not address tapered canopies (i.e. Stiletto) , so we are back to guessing. Since tapered canopies are so complex, we usually just get lazy and repeat whatever number the manufacturer published.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using method A or method B, just use the same method for comparing all canopies.
The problem lies in every manufacturer using a different measuring method. For example, Para-Flite and PISA used PIA measuring methods, while PD invented their own, etc. Atair just quotes whatever number their computer spits out. I doubt if Atair has ever applied a tape measure to a finished canopy. Hee! Hee!
Back around 2001 Icarus converted to PD's measuring method, so at least you can compare "apples with apples" with those two companies.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

[cruzlite 0]

I find the 'sabre' 135 listed as 143 sq ft in ParaGear's chart ...(not in bold type, so..from the PIA).....
Since PD makes a 135 in sabre & sabre 2.... I am guessing the 143 comes from the sabre because of the age of the PIA figures...
They're both 'probably' the same...

My guess is yes...
Don't know about the stilletto, but what riggerrob says makes sense.