polarbear

Impressive!

By the way, I went home and checked my Raven owners manual, and was able to confirm what I said in my erlier post. While a Raven can be used as a main or a reserve, if an individual canopy has been jumped as a main, it may not be used as a reserve. The exception is one "familiarization" jump is allowed.

I sure as hell didn't start it, don't blame me. I never heard of it before this thread. As I said in my previous post, the manufacturers instructions must be complied with...whatever they say goes. If they don't specify a lifespan, there is none and it is up to the individual rigger. I heard once that PISA reserves are good for 5 jumps...I haven't been a able to confirm that information. I guess I'll go look for an owner's manual.

Hi Brian! Welcome, we all appreciate your advice and information. Don't worry about getting technical...that is EXACTLY the type of information I like, and it is hard to come by. I haven't been able to jump the same canopy design with and without airlocks, but I have been able to jump both a samurai and a vengeance, as well as several other non-airlocked elliptical canopies. Both the vengeance and the samurai were beautiful flying machines, in my opinion. They both felt much more solid in and out of turbulence. As for the performance, well...they both performed very nicely, but I can't say if the airlocks helped that. Being an engineer and (almost) a rigger, I do believe that there is some sound engineering behind the airlock principle.

Also check out the icarus website, www.icaruscanopies.com. Their description of the Extreme FX gives a good explanation of what cross bracing is.

I think I'd agree. For high-performance parachutes, I would say the other design parameters (airfoil, planform, trim, etc.) are more important than whether or not to have airlocks. A crappy wing design with airlocks is still a crappy wing design. However, my observations (flying a Vengeance 170 and a Heatwave 170) are that the Vengeance 170 really didn't "accordian" as much and it really did seem like I got bumped around less. I would definitely say don't buy a canopy solely based on airlocks, especially if you plan on relying on them to save you from turbulence. If it is bad enough to collapse a non-airlock, the airlock won't do much better.

Most of the pros and cons previously listed are correct. It needs to be stated that Airlocks DO NOT make a canopy turbulence proof. All wings depend on smooth air to fly. Ram-Air wings depend on smooth air to stay inflated. Airlocks can help keep the wing inflated, but the canopy will still need "good air" to fly correctly. Don't look at airlocks as something that allows you to jump in more turbulent conditions...if you would stay on the ground with a normal canopy, stay on the ground with an airlock. Airlock canopies can still be collapsed...they are just more resistant to it. One thing people don't ever mention is that the airlocks help with more than just turbulence. The canopy pressure is maintained throughout the range of maneuvers a canopy sees. This adds a degree of rigidity to the canopy, similar to what cross-bracing does (although NOT the same as cross bracing). The "bracing" in the airlocked canopy is due to the internal pressure.

There is no FAA regulation concerning this, other than that the manufacturer's instructions must be complied with. Therefore, it is up to the manufacturer to specify if the reserve could be jumped as a main. In the case of Ravens, no, I don't think it is legal. Ravens can be used as mains, but a Raven that has been jumped as a main ten times may not be used as a reserve. Precision allows that a reserve may be jumped ONCE as a main for "familiarization"...I think. I haven't read the owner's manual for a while. PD does not allow jumping their reserves as mains...only their "demo" reserves may be used as mains. Don't know about Tempos or other brands. I don't think Tempos have main bridle attachments. Glide Path International reserves, I think, do have attachments. I would guess they have similar rules to Precision. I think Strong Enterprises reserves also have main bridle attachments, but I don't know for sure.

My old rig was a Talon T-6. It is sized for a Sabre 170/PD 176 R. I had the following in it: Monarch 215 (real tight) & Raven II (too tight...wouldn't do it agani now that I know what I'm doing) Sabre 170 (good fit...not real firm pack density) Heatwave 170 (a little small, but OK) PD 176 R (tight fit...firm pack density) Now I have a Mirage G3 sized for a PD 160R/Stiletto 150. I have had Heatwave 170(a little tight) PD 160R(just right). My experience is that the container manufacturers have a pretty good idea of what will fit and what won't.

Yes, check with PISA. Different reserves have different lifespans. The lifespans are there for a reason. Jumping past the lifespan puts you in the same category as jumping above the maximum weight/speed-"test jumper".

Would you mind giving a brief description of how the above factors affect riser pressure? Seems like it would be good, just for general knowledge.

I think that will constitute an "alteration", and since it is to an approved part of the system (ie the harness), it will have to be done WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM THE MANUFACTURER. Assuming the manufacturer authorizes it and provides specific instructions, a Master Rigger should be able to do it. In my opinion, your best bet is to send it straight to the manufacturer. You have to get their approval anyway, and they already have the machines set up to do the job, they already have the hardware, and they (should) have the experience to do it well. My guess is it won't be cheap.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't, but a Spectre should open nice and soft without a Psycho-Pack. If you are having trouble getting it in the bag, the best advice I would give is practice, practice, practice!

I would not recommend doing this! Nylon probably won't like the heat of an iron! At the very least, try it out on some "scrap" first, to make sure. Be aware that the damage may not be visible. I would also suspect that the iron-on logo would not stick well to zp.

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.

I jumped a Crossfire 149 @ 1.55 and got the softest openings ever...but also the most off-heading. Out of ten jumps, every one was AT LEAST 180 off. Twice I had it open into end cell closure and it started spinning so fast it was turning me on my back. It was the same story every time...it would come out of the bag straight, start to inflate straight, the slider would start down, and then it was turning-diving. I have had no such problems over 150 jumps on 170 ellipticals (Heatwave and Vengeance), nor did I have any trouble with a Stiletto 150. 3 other people at my DZ jumped that Crossfire 149 and they all had similar experiences, which leads me to believe it was the canopy. Lots of people seem to like Crossfires, but in my opinion there is something not quite right with them.

Generally, it depends on the rigger. It is good for the skydiver to watch the reserve repack just for the reasons you stated. However, it is also important that the rigger not be distracted. Ask your rigger, I'm sure he will find some way to accomodate you.

I'll give you my experience, but I'm no expert. I measure riser length from one end (where the 2nd largest ring of the 3-ring assembly is attached) to the other end (where the connector link goes). It was my understanding that the industry standard was 21". I have always preferred 19". I can reach the slider easily with this length. Using shorter risers places you closer to the canopy. This has the effect of lowering the control range, ie, the brakes will feel deeper in the toggle stroke. You will probably find that you need to flare deeper. The stall point may be so low in the control range that you can't reach it. Shortening the steering lines can help negate this effect. My suggestion is jump the new risers and see how the brakes feel. If you want the control range higher, you can shorten the steering lines. Shorten in small steps. I don't know much about Sunpath risers, but my guess is they have a short one. Ask them how to measure the riser length, and then how short of a riser they can make for you.

Yeah. I didn't say PREVENT, just inhibit.

I'm not neccesarily talking about SUEING anybody. The fact is that when you pay $1000-2000 for a container, it becomes yours. The manufacturer DOES NOT own it. They have a legal right to declare it unairworthy, or to to demand that a modification be made to it to make it airworthy (issue an AD), or to not pack it/fix it if it comes in the shop if they think it is unairworthy. If they want to recommend a modification be made, fine. That's all cool (it would suck if it happened, but it goes with the territory). Personally, I welcome the input of the manufacturers. I am also glad to know that there are people out there who will bite the bullet and say old ratty gear is no good anymore. But to make a modification, especially one that DOES NOT affect the airworthyness, without even consulting the owner is overstepping the bounds, at least in my book.

I suspect you're right. That was the reason behind the *may* in my previous post. It was a BIG maybe.

Interesting...I specifically asked mirage systems if the Unisyn harness inhibited the ability to steer the canopy with the harness, and they said no. I'm not sure if I believe that. I do agree it is very comfortable. I like mine.

The Javelin is the easiest to pack for me, but that is probably because I have packed mostly Javelins. The Talon is also simple; for me, it is the easiest to make look good (yes, aesthetics are a part of packing a reserve, at least to many riggers). I have packed one Vector and it was a pain in the ass, but that is probably because I had never seen a rig like that before. When I packed my Mirage (which is very similar to the Vector 3), it was much easier. Most riggers will have their own opinions on what is the easiest to pack. I have observed that there is a strong correlation between what rig a rigger thinks is easiest and what rig that rigger has packed the most of. Experience seems to count a lot towards ease of packing.

I'm afraid I don't know that. I would guess that lines in a pouch would be a little faster, but that is only a guess. Maybe Bill Booth will pay us another visit and answer the question. And yes, a reserve should deploy faster than a main...they are designed to open fast, while most mains these days are designed to open slower. Part of the difference is in the design of the canopy. Part of the difference is in the way the canopy is packed. I would also expect that part of the difference is in the way that the canopy is deployed (ie extracted from the container, lines unstowed, canopy out of the container but not yet inflated)

I believe Advisory Circular (AC) 105-2C gives a little clarification on who can do what to a container. However, from what my rigger studies are telling me, billvon is right. The manufacturer CAN modify the rig. If the modification is done to the reserve container or harness (the TSO'd part), it might (probably will) neccesitate FAA approval, depending on if the modification is different from the TSO drawings. If it is done to the main container, approval is not needed. I would agree that no one should do ANYTHING to your equipment (except maybe comply with a mandatory AD)without talking to you about it first, or at least letting you know what they did and why. The manufacturer may have legal backing to do something, but they should respect ownership of property.