Jib 0 #1 June 5, 2003 Anyone have any new thoughts regarding recalled Raven Dash-M's? Are they worth anything? Did the mod take care of the problems that led to it? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #2 June 6, 2003 QuoteAnyone have any new thoughts regarding recalled Raven Dash-M's? Are they worth anything? Did the mod take care of the problems that led to it? the mod fixed the problem on opening, but the flight performance of a dash m aren't very good (at least on 150 and down). they have a very short toggle stroke (like it stalls about mid chest or higher). later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #3 June 6, 2003 I doubt that putting 2 bartacks in a piece of Type III will make the attachment any stronger. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #4 June 6, 2003 This is my (OPINION) but it has merrit. The Original Mod with the double bartack, did absolutely Nothing, to strengthen the attatchment. If anything it actually weakened it by tearing more holes into the fabric. Mike Truffer from skydive Magazine did a test and the actual tape ripped 50% of the time, not even at the stitch, the other times it tore at the stitch but at a very low pull force. Precision doesn't manufacture reserves using type3 webbing anymore, and modifications sent to the factory changed the webbing. I think but not sure (someone help me out here) that there was a second mod, that made you change the tape. Type 3 tape has been used on sport mains successfully for a long time, but it doesnt hold up to the strain of a terminal reserve deployment. Precision makes more reserves than any other company, and they are a treat to pack, I havent flown one so I dont know how they fly. As long as the canopy doesn't have type3 webbing it should be a fine reserve to have. I can say that I love my PD reserve, and I would jump nothing else, I have jumped the 3 smallest size pd Sells, and they flew and opened wonderfully. Never a hard landing, I even swooped the 106 twice. As my Opinion if you have the money buy a PD if you just want a reserve and dont care buy the used whatever. Just make sure you have a rigger inspect it first before you give your money, if you buy it and it needs work then you might get stuck paying for it yourself. Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #5 June 6, 2003 If Precision installed Type I tapes when they did the Service Bulletin, then I would consider buying a used Raven-M. I would not plan to over load any Raven it because most reserves of its generation (i.e. designed in the 1980s) fly miserably when over-loaded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #6 June 6, 2003 just to clarify riggerrob by overloading you mean loading a reserve at more than 1.1:1, correct? --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #7 June 6, 2003 There are generally two 'maximum' weights for a reserve. One is the TSO'd wieght limit the canopy is certified to, the other is the manufacturer's recommended maximum weight. The difference is above the recommended max, the canopy will be difficult to fly or flare. Above the TSO'd max, it may not hold together on deployment. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #8 June 6, 2003 the TSO'd weight is a lot though (at least for me at 125 pounds), so much that I'd probably never have to worry about it. I was thinking more of the safety issues of it such as, unconscious under reserve, you don't want anything greater than 1-1.1 or so WL. Maybe we're talking about two different things, but I suppose the two numbers HAVE to be met and recognized (the case that if one of the numbers arn't being met, then its dangerous, regardless of whether either the WL or TSO'd weight is still met) So why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. I can't envision myself going over 1.1 with my reserve EVER, no matter how "good" I get at skydiving. I think I'll like a nice fat .8 WL for my first reserveCorrect me if anything I said is wrong, please... --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #9 June 6, 2003 [QUOTE]the other is the manufacturer's recommended maximum weight[/QUOTE] so what WL do the manufacturer's generally recomend then? I couldn't see a reserve manufacturer recomending it as a good idea to load a reserve at 1.4. --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #10 June 6, 2003 QuoteSo why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. Because a 180 sq ft reserve and a 100 sq ft main don't look nearly as good in a container as a 113 reserve and a 100 main do. Because they're betting that their Cypres will never have to save them when they are unconcious cuz they know an unconcious landing under that little reserve is going to be painful if they ever wake up again. Because they either think or know that they have the skills to land that canopy safely when they need to. QuoteI can't envision myself going over 1.1 with my reserve EVER, no matter how "good" I get at skydiving. Five hundred jumps ago I said I'd NEVER fly a zp canopy, no matter how "good" I got at skydiving. Since then I've jumped four different zp mains - Sabre, Spectre, Safire, and Diablo - and now I'll never go back to all F111. Three hundred jumps ago I said I'd NEVER fly anything smaller than a 170; I did 100+ jumps on a 150 after that. Never say never. You may get good enough that you'll be confident carrying a smaller reserve. Until then, conservative is smart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites andy2 0 #11 June 6, 2003 [QUOTE]Never say never. You may get good enough that you'll be confident carrying a smaller reserve. Until then, conservative is smart[/QUOTE] right, or instead of conservative, logical. I don't know how my flaring capabilities are unconscious but I would bet theyre not good --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #12 June 6, 2003 Quotethe TSO'd weight is a lot though (at least for me at 125 pounds), so much that I'd probably never have to worry about it. I was thinking more of the safety issues of it such as, unconscious under reserve, you don't want anything greater than 1-1.1 or so WL. Maybe we're talking about two different things, but I suppose the two numbers HAVE to be met and recognized (the case that if one of the numbers arn't being met, then its dangerous, regardless of whether either the WL or TSO'd weight is still met) For example, I have a PD-106R reserve. The max recommended weight is 128 lbs., exit weight. The max weight to be legal under the TSO is 220 lbs. A 92 lb. difference between recommended max and TSO max. The difference is flying and landing characteristics. Above 128 lbs., the canopy becomes more and more difficult to fly and land and is not recommended by PD. 128 lbs. is the max they recommend and that is only for very experienced jumpers. So why do I have such a small reserve? I can handle it. I have landed a similar, but more difficult to land, reserve 7 times, standing up, on target. I don't have a Cypres (that is another story, I would like one) so landing unconscious under my reserve is not a likely scenario. Any time you exceed the recommended maximum, you are dramatically increasing your risks and had better know what you are doing and be willing to accept those risks. It is not something to be taken lightly. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Watcher 0 #13 June 6, 2003 QuoteSo why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. It fits in the container. Looks better. We all take our chances and evaluate what an acceptable risk is to them. My 113 is acceptable to me, a 1.6:1 wingloading to other people is not acceptable, but I've flown it 3 times and like the performance and response. Will I be ok if Im unconcious, most likely not, but thats the risk I am willing to take, means I have to be more careful on the loads and jumps I get on. Its just the way it is. --Jonathan Bartlett D-24876 AFF-I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #14 June 6, 2003 >So why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. Because: 1. They want a cool tiny rig. All the cool guys have tiny rigs. 2. They figure that if they can land their Crossfire 120 and survive, they can definitely land a slower F111 reserve, right? Reserves are just slower. 3. They figure that they use their reserves so seldom that you can 'skimp' on landing characteristics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #15 June 7, 2003 Manufacturers publish two different limits on suspended weights under their reserves: opening and landing. The first number is usually the 254 pounds specified in most TSOs and that is the maximum weight they expect to survive opening. The second, smaller number is an educated guess at what weight your ankles will survive landing. Sure their test jumpers landed that model at heavier weights, but they include a conservative "fudge factor" when they placard the canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites precision 0 #16 June 9, 2003 QuoteIf Precision installed Type I tapes when they did the Service Bulletin... Actually, we do just that, Rob. When a canopy comes in for SB1221, all 16 of the A-B T3 line attachment tapes are removed and replaced with T1. For consistent quality and uniformity, we have established a specific routine, and we apply it to all SB1221 canopies. George Galloway Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beezyshaw 0 #17 May 8, 2006 QuoteI doubt that putting 2 bartacks in a piece of Type III will make the attachment any stronger. I made the following statements in another thread that drifted into a discussion about the Dash-M canopy and Precision's service bulletin. I was not intending to hijack a thread on another subject, but I was PM'd asking to please take the discussion back to an appropriate thread. So, here's what I wrote in the thread, in reply to a post by Samurai136 (which was about PD making canopies in Honduras ): "It is true that the failure was not the stitching, but what the service bulletin calls for as the "fix" is to add another bartack. So in essence adding more stitching was "believed" to be the way to repair affected canopies (at least early on). However, there also were canopies with two bartacks that also sustained damage similar to the originally affected canopies. Thus, the next suspect cause of the problem was the Type III tape used for line attachments. So, in later SB repairs done at Precision, the Type III tape was replaced with Type I (not type V as you say) as well as using two bartacks to sew the loops to the canopy. What I would like to point out is this; original Sabre canopies, which have been known to have extremely hard openings from time to time, are built with Type III tape and a single bartack. So how can these canopies withstand all these brutal openings and the Dash-M canopies come apart using the same materials? I suggest it is because the Dash-M Raven is built using non-standard construction of a span-wise lower surface (to which the line attachments are sewn) and the only reinforcement of that lower surface is the fell seams which join the pieces of material together. There is no reinforcement tapes in the span of the canopy, and I believe that during openings the forces imposed on the canopy stretch the lower surface material beyond what it is able to withstand, and the result is the line attachments are simply ripped off the canopy. There have been many theories about what went wrong with the Dash-M canopies, but having a lengthy history of involvement in examining the damaged reserves, I have good reason to believe my educated guess is correct." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beezyshaw 0 #18 May 8, 2006 QuoteNo you started a rumor. Two people were injured because they used their reserves outside of design limitations. I have moved my reply to Diablopilot from another thread to this thread, to prevent the other thread from too much drift from its original subject: "No, JP, that is NOT the fact. Read this direct quote from Precision's Service Bulletin: [Within the past 30 days, we have witnessed 2 separate occasions wherein the integrity of the line attachment system of 2 different Dash-M canopies has been compromised during normal use by persons who are documented as having been within the Maximum Operating Limitations of Weight and Speed.] Please don't state emotional opinion as fact. As a side note, the lawsuit that resulted in the huge judgement against Precision was on behalf of a jumper who was within the legal limits of weight and speed for his reserve." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #19 May 8, 2006 Quotewe apply it to all SB1221 canopies. Not true, PA applied the SB to my -M and did not up-grade the tape to type1. I am still waiting (about a year now) for the average peak forces for all the -M's as required to be on the canopy labels by the TSO. As of right now, Raven-M's do not comply with the TSO requirements for markings. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #20 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuotewe apply it to all SB1221 canopies. Not true, PA applied the SB to my -M and did not up-grade the tape to type1. I am still waiting (about a year now) for the average peak forces for all the -M's as required to be on the canopy labels by the TSO. As of right now, Raven-M's do not comply with the TSO requirements for markings. Derek Ugh! I've got a Dash-M. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pastramionrye7 0 #21 May 14, 2006 Do any experts out there know what is different about Dash-Ms that are not affected by the service bulletin? Were they built with different tape at the line attachment points, or is it the same Type III tape as the affected versions but with two bartacks? Does anyone know of Dash-Ms that were not affected by the service bulletin being damaged on opening? I'm interested because I have a Dash-M that was manufactured in 2001, after the service bulletin. Thanks. -Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #22 May 15, 2006 QuoteDo any experts out there know what is different about Dash-Ms that are not affected by the service bulletin? Were they built with different tape at the line attachment points, or is it the same Type III tape as the affected versions but with two bartacks? Does anyone know of Dash-Ms that were not affected by the service bulletin being damaged on opening? I'm interested because I have a Dash-M that was manufactured in 2001, after the service bulletin. Thanks. -Dennis precision This is the person to contact, they make the canopy. Posted the 16th. post in this thread.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
andy2 0 #11 June 6, 2003 [QUOTE]Never say never. You may get good enough that you'll be confident carrying a smaller reserve. Until then, conservative is smart[/QUOTE] right, or instead of conservative, logical. I don't know how my flaring capabilities are unconscious but I would bet theyre not good --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #12 June 6, 2003 Quotethe TSO'd weight is a lot though (at least for me at 125 pounds), so much that I'd probably never have to worry about it. I was thinking more of the safety issues of it such as, unconscious under reserve, you don't want anything greater than 1-1.1 or so WL. Maybe we're talking about two different things, but I suppose the two numbers HAVE to be met and recognized (the case that if one of the numbers arn't being met, then its dangerous, regardless of whether either the WL or TSO'd weight is still met) For example, I have a PD-106R reserve. The max recommended weight is 128 lbs., exit weight. The max weight to be legal under the TSO is 220 lbs. A 92 lb. difference between recommended max and TSO max. The difference is flying and landing characteristics. Above 128 lbs., the canopy becomes more and more difficult to fly and land and is not recommended by PD. 128 lbs. is the max they recommend and that is only for very experienced jumpers. So why do I have such a small reserve? I can handle it. I have landed a similar, but more difficult to land, reserve 7 times, standing up, on target. I don't have a Cypres (that is another story, I would like one) so landing unconscious under my reserve is not a likely scenario. Any time you exceed the recommended maximum, you are dramatically increasing your risks and had better know what you are doing and be willing to accept those risks. It is not something to be taken lightly. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Watcher 0 #13 June 6, 2003 QuoteSo why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. It fits in the container. Looks better. We all take our chances and evaluate what an acceptable risk is to them. My 113 is acceptable to me, a 1.6:1 wingloading to other people is not acceptable, but I've flown it 3 times and like the performance and response. Will I be ok if Im unconcious, most likely not, but thats the risk I am willing to take, means I have to be more careful on the loads and jumps I get on. Its just the way it is. --Jonathan Bartlett D-24876 AFF-I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #14 June 6, 2003 >So why do people fly like 113 reserves when they weigh ~180? That sounds stupid/dangerous. Because: 1. They want a cool tiny rig. All the cool guys have tiny rigs. 2. They figure that if they can land their Crossfire 120 and survive, they can definitely land a slower F111 reserve, right? Reserves are just slower. 3. They figure that they use their reserves so seldom that you can 'skimp' on landing characteristics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #15 June 7, 2003 Manufacturers publish two different limits on suspended weights under their reserves: opening and landing. The first number is usually the 254 pounds specified in most TSOs and that is the maximum weight they expect to survive opening. The second, smaller number is an educated guess at what weight your ankles will survive landing. Sure their test jumpers landed that model at heavier weights, but they include a conservative "fudge factor" when they placard the canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
precision 0 #16 June 9, 2003 QuoteIf Precision installed Type I tapes when they did the Service Bulletin... Actually, we do just that, Rob. When a canopy comes in for SB1221, all 16 of the A-B T3 line attachment tapes are removed and replaced with T1. For consistent quality and uniformity, we have established a specific routine, and we apply it to all SB1221 canopies. George Galloway Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beezyshaw 0 #17 May 8, 2006 QuoteI doubt that putting 2 bartacks in a piece of Type III will make the attachment any stronger. I made the following statements in another thread that drifted into a discussion about the Dash-M canopy and Precision's service bulletin. I was not intending to hijack a thread on another subject, but I was PM'd asking to please take the discussion back to an appropriate thread. So, here's what I wrote in the thread, in reply to a post by Samurai136 (which was about PD making canopies in Honduras ): "It is true that the failure was not the stitching, but what the service bulletin calls for as the "fix" is to add another bartack. So in essence adding more stitching was "believed" to be the way to repair affected canopies (at least early on). However, there also were canopies with two bartacks that also sustained damage similar to the originally affected canopies. Thus, the next suspect cause of the problem was the Type III tape used for line attachments. So, in later SB repairs done at Precision, the Type III tape was replaced with Type I (not type V as you say) as well as using two bartacks to sew the loops to the canopy. What I would like to point out is this; original Sabre canopies, which have been known to have extremely hard openings from time to time, are built with Type III tape and a single bartack. So how can these canopies withstand all these brutal openings and the Dash-M canopies come apart using the same materials? I suggest it is because the Dash-M Raven is built using non-standard construction of a span-wise lower surface (to which the line attachments are sewn) and the only reinforcement of that lower surface is the fell seams which join the pieces of material together. There is no reinforcement tapes in the span of the canopy, and I believe that during openings the forces imposed on the canopy stretch the lower surface material beyond what it is able to withstand, and the result is the line attachments are simply ripped off the canopy. There have been many theories about what went wrong with the Dash-M canopies, but having a lengthy history of involvement in examining the damaged reserves, I have good reason to believe my educated guess is correct." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beezyshaw 0 #18 May 8, 2006 QuoteNo you started a rumor. Two people were injured because they used their reserves outside of design limitations. I have moved my reply to Diablopilot from another thread to this thread, to prevent the other thread from too much drift from its original subject: "No, JP, that is NOT the fact. Read this direct quote from Precision's Service Bulletin: [Within the past 30 days, we have witnessed 2 separate occasions wherein the integrity of the line attachment system of 2 different Dash-M canopies has been compromised during normal use by persons who are documented as having been within the Maximum Operating Limitations of Weight and Speed.] Please don't state emotional opinion as fact. As a side note, the lawsuit that resulted in the huge judgement against Precision was on behalf of a jumper who was within the legal limits of weight and speed for his reserve." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #19 May 8, 2006 Quotewe apply it to all SB1221 canopies. Not true, PA applied the SB to my -M and did not up-grade the tape to type1. I am still waiting (about a year now) for the average peak forces for all the -M's as required to be on the canopy labels by the TSO. As of right now, Raven-M's do not comply with the TSO requirements for markings. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #20 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuotewe apply it to all SB1221 canopies. Not true, PA applied the SB to my -M and did not up-grade the tape to type1. I am still waiting (about a year now) for the average peak forces for all the -M's as required to be on the canopy labels by the TSO. As of right now, Raven-M's do not comply with the TSO requirements for markings. Derek Ugh! I've got a Dash-M. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pastramionrye7 0 #21 May 14, 2006 Do any experts out there know what is different about Dash-Ms that are not affected by the service bulletin? Were they built with different tape at the line attachment points, or is it the same Type III tape as the affected versions but with two bartacks? Does anyone know of Dash-Ms that were not affected by the service bulletin being damaged on opening? I'm interested because I have a Dash-M that was manufactured in 2001, after the service bulletin. Thanks. -Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #22 May 15, 2006 QuoteDo any experts out there know what is different about Dash-Ms that are not affected by the service bulletin? Were they built with different tape at the line attachment points, or is it the same Type III tape as the affected versions but with two bartacks? Does anyone know of Dash-Ms that were not affected by the service bulletin being damaged on opening? I'm interested because I have a Dash-M that was manufactured in 2001, after the service bulletin. Thanks. -Dennis precision This is the person to contact, they make the canopy. Posted the 16th. post in this thread.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
