SWIFT PLUS - what size is mine?

[skydiverek 54]

I have a Swift Plus here. DOM: June 1990. TSO C23c (Cat b). P/N: E 8009. Max gross weight: 200 lbs.

No size is published... I know that Swift Plus was in sizes of 145, 175, and 225. Which one would be mine?

[sundevil777 93]

There was also a 200 ft^2 version.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Bartek,

The last that I knew ( a few years ago ) Randy Copenhaver still worked at Airborne Systems. He's an old-timer who was there back in those days.

Send him an email at:

randy.copenhaver(at)airborne-sys(dot)com

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

Going to my definitive reference library, the ParaGear catalogs, the Swift Plus 175 has a Max susp. weight of 200lb listed. With 160lb and 240lb for the 145 and 225 respectively. Oddly enough the 1989 manual doesn't give any of the specifications.

BTW through Catalog #66, 01-02, the last year ParaFlite is in the catalog there is no 200 sq. ft. Swift Plus listed.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[pchapman 261]

While councilman must have the answer, the reason might be (if it isn't just a worn data panel) that the Swift Plus' "normal size" was likely the 175 (close to that of the original Swift), which is why it might not list a size. Only the subsequent little version and big version would have a number added.

Sort of like how a Glide Path Fury is just a "Fury", and is always 220 ft sq. -- however there's also a "Fury 200" (quite rare in that case).

[skydiverek 54]

Thank you guys for the answers!

[GGGGIO 0]

Your part number doesn’t jive.

The Swift Plus PN break down is as follows:
Swift Plus 145, PN 828100-0, SN prefix R8-
Swift Plus 175, PN 827400-0, SN prefix R6-
Swift Plus 225, PN 828000-0, SN prefix R7-

By the Max Gross Weight one can presume it’s a 175.
There was never a 200 sqft Swift Plus even if the earlier Swift Plus 175 models had the block stamp reading “Swift Plus 200”

[sundevil777 93]

Thanks for the detail on the sizes. I thought what I had was a 175, until I sold it and my rigger that removed it said it was a 200. It landed me very nicely at a WL of 1.4

The label had no reference to size other than the part/serial number, correct?

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

[GGGGIO 0]

You're right

[SStewart 13]

You could measure it to be sure.

Onward and Upward!

[nitrochute 2]

if you DO measure it, para flite's method is to measure the cord from the very front edge of the rib where the top is sewn to it, strait back to the tail seam,DO NOT measure the top surface as that will give you an artificially higher square footage. then to measure the span, measure the top surface at the reinforcing tape at the leading edge .this was para flites method of measuring canopies. they even tried to get it adoptaed as the industry standard, to no avail. (because a mfr could measure the topfrom nose to tail and claim a bigger canopy with less bulk

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

Your part number doesn’t jive.

The Swift Plus PN break down is as follows:
Swift Plus 145, PN 828100-0, SN prefix R8-
Swift Plus 175, PN 827400-0, SN prefix R6-
Swift Plus 225, PN 828000-0, SN prefix R7-

By the Max Gross Weight one can presume it’s a 175.
There was never a 200 sqft Swift Plus even if the earlier Swift Plus 175 models had the block stamp reading “Swift Plus 200”

Got a reply:

"This canopy was made by Parachute Industries of Southern Africa (PISA) under license from Para-Flite. Based on the maximum weight this is a Swift Plus 175.

Randy Copenhaver
Production Engineering Director"

Hence, different serial numbers....

[pchapman 261]

Quote

"This canopy was made by Parachute Industries of Southern Africa (PISA)

Now that's a rigging plot twist!

[IfTomorrowWar 0]

I was told my reserve was a 225 when I bought it. A 200 when it was repacked by a rigger. Is it really a 175?

[pchapman 261]

Quote

I was told my reserve was a 225 when I bought it. A 200 when it was repacked by a rigger. Is it really a 175?

Curious indeed.

From your photo:
The packing card has it written in as a 225, but it was scratched out and rewritten as a 200 (which shouldn't exist for a Swift Plus) The serial starts with R6, which on this thread was said to be a 175. And the max suggested weight written on the card is 215, which doesn't match the numbers in this thread (which I confirmed in an old Paragear) for any of the three sizes.

Edit: Sounds like it is shrinking every year. If this were still April 1, I'd advise your rigger to launder it in cold water only, not hot water at each repack.

[GGGGIO 0]

Do you have a picture of the data block on the canopy? That's what you should reference for details such as PN, SN, DOM and the likes, rather than the card if you want to be certain.

[Unstable 8]

Paraflite seems like an interesting company. I know they are alive and well, producing parachutes on defense contracts, but what was the factor that pushed them out of the sport market in the first place?

=========Shaun ==========

[nitrochute 2]

they left the sport market due to among other things, NO LIABILITY INSURANCE. also Steve Snyder sold the company and its possible that the new owners didnt want the hassle of dealing with the sport market. besides there is a whole lot more money to be made in the military market(something that the late Dick Morgan explained to me before he retired in 82)

[pchapman 261]

And I'd guess the sport market was being more of a hassle, because their products started to become less relevant.

They had some products getting outdated at the start of the 90s. Such as their reserves, especially when compared to the new PD series that just came out. And where they did try to innovate and introduce new stuff, it wasn't catching the market's eye for whatever reason. E.g., EOS rig, Evolution canopy (innovative but bizarre).

It would be interesting to hear from someone who was a dealer for them at the time, as they might have a better understanding of how the company was dealing with the market.

[gowlerk 1,903]

I just received a Swift Plus with a label marking it as a 200 and a Max weight as 215 lbs. It does say 200, but does not say sq. ft.. So my research led me to this thread.

It's part # 827400-0 and Serial # R6-3437, DOM Nov. 90. According to GGGGIO there is no 200 sq ft model, but I was hoping. So I measured it and did the math. He is correct. I have no idea why they marked it "200" or why the max weight is so high.

I'm just posting this to help anyone in the future who may be looking for info on one of these.

Ken

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SEREJumper 1]

So I guess they DO exist...What say you? Is it a 175 in disguise? Or just an Orion 215 reserve marked up as a swift plus? Interesting...

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[hackish 8]

I know this is an old thread but I do have a little to add. The sizes you guys are seeing on the data panel are the maximum certified weights.

I did just encounter such a reserve and the advice that an R6 serial number corresponds to a 175 appears correct since the data panel is similar to that pictured above and the measurements put it in the 175 range (some measurment error accounts for a few square feed difference).

-Michael