PD193R

[Dangerousmind86 0]

Come on now thirty people have looked and ONLY TWO POSTED! lets do this!

I just purchase a 1999 PD193R from the classifieds that has only 7 repacks and one "lowspeed" deployment. I've read nothing but awesome things for the pd reserve canopies. But what I really would like to know is how much a deployment affects the integrity of a reserve canopy. Barely? A little? A lot? Not at all? Almost finished setting up my first rig and would like some oppinions. Thanks to all that can help! Oh and was 700$ shipped a good deal?

ANDY

[marks 0]

Quote

I just purchase a 1999 PD193R from the classifieds that has only 7 repacks and one "lowspeed" deployment. I've read nothing but awesome things for the pd reserve canopies. But what I really would like to know is how much a deployment affects the integrity of a reserve canopy. Barely? A little? A lot? Not at all? Almost finished setting up my first rig and would like some oppinions. Thanks to all that can help! Oh and was 700$ shipped a good deal?

I would rather have a pd reserve with 1 deployment if I was buying used.

that way I know it works.

• Quote

[Dangerousmind86 0]

Thanks! So it was a good choice in buying a used reserve? I am such a newb!

ANDY

[marks 0]

you are best off buying used through your rigger.

but, a P.D. reserve is a good choice. I own TWO!... and have used on of them a few times..

have it checked out by your rigger, but i'm sure you made a good choice!.
all of us were new one time or another.

[Dangerousmind86 0]

Ya my rigger will be looking at it this weekend when I take my 2nd 45 second on my way through my liscence. All I have left to buy now is a main and I'm looking for a newer Saber2 210. Brand new Wings container with articulated hips. And all the goodies was only 1200$ ( I had a half off coupon!!) My Havok helmet really kicks some ass and I'm really rearing to jump! Thanks guys!

ANDY

[sparkie 0]

stay safe

[drjump 0]

Sounds like a good buy, depending how much your exit weight is!

[billvon 2,400]

>But what I really would like to know is how much a deployment affects the
>integrity of a reserve canopy.

Barely. In terms of wear on the canopy, the seven repacks are more significant than the one deployment.

[Dangerousmind86 0]

Thank you! I guess there is a reason you are a moderator. Best simple advice I've heard all week!

ANDY

[drjump 0]

How was the canopy treated post deployment?
Landed in the briars and brush? Dragged along the ground back to the packing area? Left lying in the sun? All things need to be considered!

[tbrown 26]

I own and jump a PD193R that was built in 2001.

The canopy had 3 deployments on it, all by the previous owner. Two were cutaways from low speed mals, one was a Cypres fire that occured when the guy accidently opened his main too low ( a "two-out" deployment). The Master Rigger who inspected it said the canopy was in beautiful condition and I haven't worried about it since. And so far in 3 years, I haven't had to use it, but I have complete confidence that it's waiting for me when I need it.

If you really think about it, most reserves go through their entire service life with fewer openings than a lot of main canopies get in a single day. That F-111 material is remarkably tough stuff, it just isn't as swoopy as Zero-P. And according to PD, it's actually better at containing its own damage in a bad situation than Zero-P, which has a tendency to blow itself all to hell.

So get it inspected by a rigger and if your rigger says it's good, believe it.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Come on now thirty people have looked and ONLY TWO POSTED! lets do this!

I just purchase a 1999 PD193R from the classifieds that has only 7 repacks and one "lowspeed" deployment. I've read nothing but awesome things for the pd reserve canopies. But what I really would like to know is how much a deployment affects the integrity of a reserve canopy. Barely? A little? A lot? Not at all?

PD requires reserves to be sent in for inspection and permeability testing after 40 repacks without a use or 25 deployments.

So one deployment is treated as less than 60% of a repack's wear.

[velvetjo 0]

I think you may have gotten this ratio reversed. From your figures above, it looks like:

1 deployment ~ 1.6 repacks

So a deployment is actually treated as more wear than a repack. Sorry to nitpick, it's an occupational hazard for us engineers.

Of course, you'd also have to figure in the off-cycle repack needed due to the deployment if you're thinking in terms of canopy life cycle. I'd assume that had already been accounted for in the OP's question though.

Lance

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I think you may have gotten this ratio reversed. From your figures above, it looks like:

1 deployment ~ 1.6 repacks

So a deployment is actually treated as more wear than a repack. Sorry to nitpick, it's an occupational hazard for us engineers.

You're neglecting that it's impossible to deploy the reserve without packing unless you're doing something exceptional that's not part of normal skydiving like unpacked jumps from balloons, helicopters, or fixed objects.

Since the rules allow up to 25 deployments which require 25 repacks or 40 pack jobs by themselves,15 repacks must equal 25 deployments. 15 repacks/25 deployments = .6 repacks per deployment. This is the upper bound.

With 24 deployments you would not have to send the canopy in for inspection until after your 40th repack meaning the deployments have had no effect on the inspection schedule. The lower bound is 0 repacks per deployment.

So one deployment is treated as less than 60% of a repack's wear :-)

[billvon 2,400]

>So a deployment is actually treated as more wear than a repack.

I think you may be overlooking the fact that every deployment is actually a deployment _and_ repack.

[velvetjo 0]

I think we're talking about the same thing in some ways. I didn't get that you were including repacks with deployments from your first post, but I did allude to this as being necessary:

Quote

Of course, you'd also have to figure in the off-cycle repack needed due to the deployment if you're thinking in terms of canopy life cycle. I'd assume that had already been accounted for in the OP's question though.

The off-cycle repack being the repack required due to the deployment that you & Billvon both kindly pointed out. Unfortunately, it's tough to analyze this without treating repacks and deployments as separate events, even though they might be conditionally related. They're still two separate variables.

Using the canopy manufacturer's recommendation in this analysis is probably a very gross oversimpification of the true impacts on the canopy, but it's not a completely horrible assumption either. I'd caution against putting much credence in any analysis based on that assumption. It most likely has a number of safety factors incorporated that skew the comparisons made here. It also doesn't even begin to address issues like low-speed vs. terminal deployments, packing conditions, etc.

But, if you use that assumption anyhow, you then need to look at best & worst cases. Check it out.

Define some variables as:
I - conditions needed for manufacturer inspection
r - a repack
d - a deployment (not including repack)

So, by the manufacturer recommendations of max repacks and/or deployments, there are two worst case conditions:

I = 40r +24d or I = 39r +25d
(includes a repack for each deployment)

and two best case conditions:

I = 40r or I = 25r +25d
(assumes a repack for each deployment, and that you wouldn't have your rigger repack it just before sending it to PD for inspection)

So, playing along with the assumption above, you can call the best cases equal and the worst cases equal. Solving for r in each case yields:

Worst Case: 1r = 1d

Best Case: 1r = 1.66d
(which appears to be your point above)

So, by this logic, a repack is equal to a deployment in the worst case of usage and ~1.7 deployments in the best case of usage. I still think the initial assumption is too simplistic, but at least this range gives you a more realistic feeling for the inspection parameters.

Lance

[sundevil777 93]

The claim that repacking causes more wear than a deployment seems completely senseless to me, because each deployment must include a repack. For the claim to be true, it would seem that a deployment must repair some of the damage caused by the packing.

For a main canopy made from low porosity fabric (not ZP), we would never consider it to be worn out after 40 repacks AND jumps.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

For a main canopy made from low porosity fabric (not ZP), we would never consider it to be worn out after 40 repacks AND jumps.

We'd also never recommend loading a F111 main at more than half the 2.0 pounds/square foot which is the highest placarded maximum for a PD reserve (PD126R @ 254 pounds) and don't want brisk openings.

TSO C23 imposes maximum opening distance, descent rate, and forward speed limits on reserves which porosity will increase. The TSOs say nothing about mains.

For practical purposes I think of F111 reserves at contemporary wing loadings as ZP canopies. The standard PD reserve lands better than a ZP Lightning and they claim the new low bulk units perform more like other ZP mains.

When talking about his companies reserves, George Galloway has stated that repacks cause more wear, and that there isn't a performance difference between his F111 reserves and F111/ZP topskin hybrids.

The TSO limits and ZP-like performance beyond F111 wing loadings aren't going to be there when the canopies have gotten porous.

[billvon 2,400]

> The claim that repacking causes more wear than a deployment
> seems completely senseless to me, because each deployment must
> include a repack.

If you consider two events:

1) deployment
2) repack

then the repack causes more wear than a deployment.

If you consider two events:

1) deployment and repack
2) repack

then the deployment/repack causes more wear than a repack.

If a deployment caused as much wear as a repack, then the PD limit would likely be 20 deployments or 40 repacks. Since the deployment of the canopy doesn't cause that much wear, the canopy can see up to 25 deployments before the canopy must be inspected.

>For a main canopy made from low porosity fabric (not ZP), we would
>never consider it to be worn out after 40 repacks AND jumps.

Reserves are generally held to much higher standards than mains. In addition, many people use tiny reserves; a 113 sq ft F111 main would become almost unlandable after only a few hundred jumps. Larger F111 mains last longer since they can deal with more porosity before they become dangerous.