Raven-M question

[FallRate 0]

Just curious as to whether or not my Raven Dash-M is spanwise reinforced, or crosswise, or whatever. I like the idea of having a reserve that is as strong as possible. I'm right at the limits, by the way.
FallRate

[councilman24 37]

see http://precision.aerodynamics.com/top/dashmfaq.htm The bottom is constructed spanwise with the seams at the line attachment points.

[lummy 4]

Bill Booth wrote

Quote

With the advent of the slider and softer opening canopies, some companies began leaving the spanwise reinforcing tapes out of their square reserves.

I believe the previous poster was referring to something that Bill Booth wrote in another post. I am interested in the answer as well since I also have a Dash M. Councilman24, you quoted for Precision's web site that

Quote

The construction of the lower surface is done in a spanwise direction, with double folded seams running across the line attachment points from wingtip to wingtip.

Is this the same thing? It sounds to me as if Precision is not using a reinforcing tape but is double folding the seams. IS this the case? Would someone mind clarifying this a little better?
TIA
Gary
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[riggerrob 643]

Raven-M reserves have folded seams running spanwise across the bottom skin, connecting line attachment points (like Swift Plus reserves). However, Raven-Ms do not have spanwise reinforcing tapes like: PD, Amigo or Tempo reserves.
We used to think that span-wise seams provided sufficient reinforcement. They used to be strong enough, until people started over-loading reserves and deploying them unstable while exceeding placarded air speed limits.
It is rumored that the new Raven Max series will include span-wise reinforcement tapes.

[lummy 4]

Thanks for clearing that up Rob.....
Just out of curiosity, how or does SB1221 fit into this?

With this in mind, how concerned would you be and what precautions would you take? I have a Dash M 181 and I am about 210 out the door and most of my jumps are sitfly recently . I was reading the specs for my reserve and was surprised to find out that the 181 max weight is 222 at MSL.
I am always on my belly by 4 and pulling between 3.5 and 3
I realize the obvious would be to go bigger or a different brand, Any other advice ( what if the only choice for me was to use this reserve, or not jump at the present?)
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[councilman24 37]

There are ususally a couple of max weights quoted these days. One is the legal, TSO limit and the other is the performance limit and often is quoted by experience level. You can buy a canopy tested to TSO C23b, the old standard, that is placarded for up to 254lbs and 130 knts (or a 150? my brain's not working this morning). PD says you can put 254 lbs on a 126, but I wouldn't want to. The newer TSO allows testing to any level. What you should know and what suprised me was that there is only about 20% safety margin in reserves. i.e. Test them to failure and back off 20% for label, (per one of the canopy manufacturers). That's not much when I'm used to 1500% in rescue hardware and ropes. We have to have a 9000lb rope for two person rescue load. So, don't push your reserve, and don't count on any of the current ram air reserves holding at 200 mph plus deployment.

[polarbear 1]

The old standard is TSO C23c, which provides for three categories of certification. Most reserves (at least the ones I have had contact with) out are certified to category B, which is 254 lbs./130 knots. The new standard, TSO C23d, allows manufacturers to certify to different limits.
The old, OLD standard was TSO C23b, which had two categories: standard and low-speed. Standard had to withstand a 5000 lb. shock load, low speed (which was intended for civilian/sport equipment) had to take a 3000 lb shock load. Low-speed parachutes/harnesses are for under 150 mph. I don't know of any reserves in common sport use that were certified under this TSO, but there are harnesses out there that are "this old" (I was surprised to find out my new Mirage G3 was certified under this TSO!).
The PD 126 is certified to 254 lbs., and as posted elsewhere in this forum, John LeBlanc says that the 126 actually experiences lower opening forces than larger PD reserves. Structurally, I don't think there is any problem putting heavy loads (but under 254) under a 126...but a heavily loaded reserve would be a bitch to fly, I bet.
I would definitely agree to not exceed manufacturer recommended maximums. To do otherwise puts you at greater risk.

[lummy 4]

Thanks guys....
and just to clarify, I am DEFINITELY not going to be jumping a 126 :) . I am also under the MAX weight for the 181 (unless I gain 15lbs really quick)
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[riggerrob 643]

lummy,
The latest Precisions Service Bulletin does not relate to bottom skin reinforcing tapes - or lack thereof.
SB211 ??? referrs to the little white line attachment tapes that are bar-tacked (a fancy stitch that requires a fancy sewing machine) to the bottom skin. For a brief period (1997 to 1999) Raven-M reserves were built with light-weight, Type 3 tape for line attachments. This worked great during the Raven-M and P-124A drop tests. But later there were a few complaints about line attachment tapes tearing. The only torn Raven-M that I saw was the result of an over-weight, overspeed "marginally stable" skydiver who scared his Cypres.
The service bulletin calls for sewing a second bartack through the line attachment tapes. I would be much happier if they replced the line attachment tapes with the stronger Type 1 tape that they used before 1997 and after 1999.
Now that tiny mains are fashionable, many skydivers naively believe that they can exceed placarded weight and airspeed limits on their reserves. Not a wise move. You may get away with exceeding limits for a while, but sooner or later you will get bitten.
Placarded limits are based on test drop data and skill level. For example, all reserves must prove that they can survive deployment speeds faster than 150 knots with 254 pound exit weights. TSO C23-E and F give manfacturers the option of certifying reserves to heavier weights or higher airspeeds.
Most manufacturers placard small reserves with smaller numbers because they do not expect heavy jumpers to survive landing tiny reserves. PD even placards their reserves for different weights depending upon user skill level.
If you try to sue a manufacturer because your over-loaded reserve failed, the judge will take one look at the placard and laugh you out of court!
Your next reserve should be placarded for your exit weight (including helmet, goggles, jumpsuit, harness, etc.)
In the long run, container manufacturers will clue in the concept that skydivers like me may be willing to jump small mains (ie. my Sabre 135), but they still want medium-sized reserves (ie. my Amigo 172)

[lummy 4]

Thanks again Rob.......
Makes me feel better knowing this. Like I mentioned, I am under Precisions MAX limit (222lbs )but by about 15 lbs....
I was concerned since I am so close AND am learning to sit.
food for thought
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[councilman24 37]

Mirage was TSO'd under C23b because the new one pin mirage is built under the authority of the old two pin reserve mirage TSO of the early 1980's. Last I knew Vector's were still made under the Wonderhog TSO C23b also. Not sure about the III's but think that's still the case. Fliteline and ParaFlite reserves might be under TSO C23b but I'd have to look to know for sure. Several of the older reserves I pack are under TSOC23b.