riggerrob 561
Recommended Posts
Actually, this was invented at Aerodyne before I was asked on board as CEO here. However perhaps I can throw some light on the topic.
The basic concept is that (and most people agree) that the leverage effect of larger 3 rings vs smaller (mini) 3 rings is less. Not only that the tolerances in manufacturing are less as well.
However, consumers are not really interested in buying a nice tiny small new H/C and putting gigantic rings on the rig in an order to reduce cutaway forces....there was a period around the time the miniforce was developed where high cutaway forces were being found on most H/C's in the industry and they seem to have gone away of late. Perhaps it was that everyone has moved to hard inserted housings in the cutaway channel. Perhaps it is that there are less reported (for what ever reason) reports of violent spinning malfunctions. Perhaps this is addressed in the latest canopy designs. I know for sure that it was on our list of criteria in developing the Mamba.
The idea behind the miniforce is to have the same leverage effect of a large 3 ring (middle ring) but on a small (mini) 3 ring system. The length created by the miniforce design adds to the leverage effect, and thus reduces the forces needed to cut away.
In the support section of the Aerodyne website, under the drop down menu "articles" there is some documentation that may offer you more reading material if you are interested.
Kind regards
Bushman
The basic concept is that (and most people agree) that the leverage effect of larger 3 rings vs smaller (mini) 3 rings is less. Not only that the tolerances in manufacturing are less as well.
However, consumers are not really interested in buying a nice tiny small new H/C and putting gigantic rings on the rig in an order to reduce cutaway forces....there was a period around the time the miniforce was developed where high cutaway forces were being found on most H/C's in the industry and they seem to have gone away of late. Perhaps it was that everyone has moved to hard inserted housings in the cutaway channel. Perhaps it is that there are less reported (for what ever reason) reports of violent spinning malfunctions. Perhaps this is addressed in the latest canopy designs. I know for sure that it was on our list of criteria in developing the Mamba.
The idea behind the miniforce is to have the same leverage effect of a large 3 ring (middle ring) but on a small (mini) 3 ring system. The length created by the miniforce design adds to the leverage effect, and thus reduces the forces needed to cut away.
In the support section of the Aerodyne website, under the drop down menu "articles" there is some documentation that may offer you more reading material if you are interested.
Kind regards
Bushman
jheadley 0
Have there ever been any cases of the miniforce rings getting hung up or not releasing?
My suspicion is that Aerodyne needed a more efficient release system for their military freefall rigs (read 500 pound bundle) and were reluctant to go for a 4-Ring system, so invented the mini-force system instead ????
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites