PD Low Bulk Reserve - upsize your reserve or downsize your container?

[AndyMan 7]

I am hoping to put a 190(1.3) where I currently have a 143(1.8).

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[wmw999 2,148]

I'd probably keep the same sized reserve and the same sized container. Then it'd be softer, and way more comfortable and easy to pack.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[deadbug 0]

I'm happy with what I have thanks (KA107 main at 2.0, PD 126R at 1.7)

• Quote

[TMPattersonJr 0]

My next rig is being built for an Angelfire 125/PD 126R size reserve. I would opt for a PD-160R (I know they're not going above 146 for now) so that way I have the option to keep the same size reserve that I already have in my current (larger) container and still downsize the container as I had planned

Blue SkiesBlack DeathFacebook
www.PLabsInc.com
www.SkydiveDeLand.com
www.FlyteSkool.ws

[caspar 0]

what about mains? if PD makes mains out of this material then people could have even smaller "cool" rigs (they do look cool) with the main they want and the reserve thats safe...

i guess this will happen later down the line??

"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."

[PhreeZone 15]

I'm pretty sure the material is a low porisity material, not a zp material that is fashionable now days on mains. Also they mentioned in Skydiving that with repeated useage they were seeing distortions in the fabric. This would not be seen with reserve useage but with hundreds of jumps on mains they would see this occuring.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,434]

>if PD makes mains out of this material then people could have even smaller "cool" rigs . . .

It's not ZP. People will not give up the performance/longevity of ZP to get a smaller rig.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

>if PD makes mains out of this material then people could have even smaller "cool" rigs . . .

It's not ZP. Most sensible People will not give up the performance/longevity of ZP to get a smaller rig.

fixed it for ya

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[billvon 2,434]

> fixed it for ya

I suspect even the dull knives won't. How many clueless canopy pilots do you know (the sort with more ego than brains) who would be happy saying "yeah, I just got a brand new low-performance main?"

[bch7773 0]

my container is small enough already. plus a smaller reserve gets you maybe a one inch reduction in height of container? not really worth it.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Pulse 0]

Keep in mind, aside from the possibility of being unconscious. You may be missing limbs, unable to use limbs, etc. There's a reason they use round canopies ,(for the most part), for aircraft emergency rigs.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[riggerrob 558]

There's a reason they use round canopies ,(for the most part), for aircraft emergency rigs.

[Pulse 0]

I do agree with the fact that it is most likely 'cheap'. But I have flown and worked with a lot of these guys. There is some arrogance perhaps but the other side of the coin is that they just don't really know. Aircraft egress is not mandatory training when you own a civillian warbird. Either they don't plan on using it, (it's unlikely they would be able to anyway). Or they feel it's no big deal getting out. On one L-39 flight the pilot briefed me that if we needed to get out, he would just roll the airplane upside down. When we unclipped the 3-point harness, we would just fall out. Uhm....yeah.

My point here is mainly that under a ram-air, you need to be a canopy-pilot to really be safe. Under a round you can be a passenger with roughly the same results. There was a time the military looked at ram-airs for ejection seats so the pilot could, "...fly back to safety". But it was realized a canopies glide probably wouldn't bring them back to safety. Also many pilots are injured after egress, be it via ejection or 'falling' out. I think of the zero-altitude ejections off of carriers that I have seen. Many of these guys end up landing back on the carrier, or slamming into the side of it, or slamming into aircraft on the deck. Carrier driving at 20-knots, into a 30-knot wind, now add another 17-knots with a downwind ram-air. You've got a 76-mph impact.

Now I think of all of the super-small reserves on the backs of people saying they only have an AAD in case they're unconscious. Unconscious, under a tiny reserve that is deployed in a less-than-desirable body position. Lifeless bodies also tend to slump to one side in the harness...now you've got a turn. Even if you are flying striaght and level by some miracle. Picture being headed downwind into a trailer park or something and you can't steer steer your reserve. Ugh.

I think I'm going to go buy that round reserve now.......kidding.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[icevideot 0]

And don't forget one important thing. If you are not going to become proficient at flying parachutes, you will be much safer under a less controllable round than under a ram air.

He slipped that last post in while I typed.

"... this ain't a Nerf world."

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what is the issue now regarding a two out situation with two very different sized canopies?

ie. using D22369's situation as an example, if they went to a 150 Reserve and had a 2 out with an 85 main, Is that a bad thing??

I did not mention it in my original post - but I wanted to see if someone else would by putting the "pros vs cons" option to see if there were any legitimate cons...

The raven I have flies so differently than the fx, that personally I doubt that thirty additional feet of fabric will make much difference with a two out situation.


I worry a whole lot more about a off dz landing, imagine dropping into a backyard on a relatively unfamiliar canopy... no fun in any event, but with a larger, slower and more forgiving canopy my odds of walking away from it are better.

I do not have an AAD, and with the reflex container with the reserve pin against my back, the chances of two out are very slim....

Of additional relevance is the fact that you've done CRW with a small high performance main where the other canopies were big docile things. I think if people are worried about canopy compatibility, the safer thing to do is build some rudimentary CRW experience and get comfortable with it rather than downsizing their reserve to a stupid wingloading.

I do have an AAD (now) and am comfortable with my 170 reserve regardless of whether my main is a 176, a 135, or a 99. As Winsor says, nobody ever looks up at their reserve and thinks, "Man I wish that thing was smaller."

On the container issue, Infinity is another that will happily accomodate a bigger reserve and smaller main.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohanW 0]

I might downsize my reserve. I now have a 155 reserve and a 120 main, and I might go for a 143 reserve and a main container that's actually packed again.

So yes, I'm opting for style.

With a 143 reserve that's two or three sizes bigger than my main, I honestly feel I could do worse. Also, I have hundreds of jumps on low aspect ratio 7-cells.

(Why do I have this nagging feeling I'm kidding noone here?)

Johan.
I am. I think.

[JohanW 0]

Quote

As Winsor says, nobody ever looks up at their reserve and thinks, "Man I wish that thing was smaller."

I know one jumper who has.

She was backing up under reserve, and wished it was smaller.

The correct wish is left as an exercise for the reader

Johan.
I am. I think.

[Pulse 0]

I don't see backing up as that big of a deal. Unless you're blowing out to sea that is. I don't think it would be prudent to get a smaller reserve just because you might use it on a windy day.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[Pulse 0]

I wouldn't say rounds are 'less controllable', they are different to fly however. You can fly rounds precisely. You can fly ram-airs precisely. It all depends on the pilot, and if they're unconscious....it really doesn't matter.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[icevideot 0]

So you think an idiot under a round doesn't stand a better chance than an idiot under a ram air?

I would think the slower forward speed of a round alone would make it more forgiving of misguided input or no input. You don't think so?

I have 6 jumps under a PC and it is light years ahead of a true round and you had to plan far ahead in order to "fly it precisely". Do you disagree?

"... this ain't a Nerf world."

[Pulse 0]

Yes, I am agreeing with you. For the same reasons I'm saying a jumper that is unconcsious is probably better off under a round. I know that if I were to make a jump where I was not going to do anything and just ride the parachute wherever it took me, I would choose a round over a ram-air anyday. Yes, even on a windy day.

And yes, I agree. In order to fly anything precisely, one needs to think ahead. How far ahead depends on the nature of what you're flying. Funny thing. I have about 20 jumps on T-10's and 5 on a Sierra (like a PC). Under my Velocity I have to think just as far ahead as one does under those other canopies. But for somewhat different reasons.

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[riggerrob 558]

Or they feel it's no big deal getting out. On one L-39 flight the pilot briefed me that if we needed to get out, he would just roll the airplane upside down. When we unclipped the 3-point harness, we would just fall out. Uhm....yeah.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed!
Hah!
Hah!
Hah!

Pilots are frequently arrogant about subjects they do not understand.

[MB38 0]

I see that the thread is slowly heading in a different direction, but here's my predictable answer for the first question.

My soon-to-be container is cut for a 150/143 combo. If I could suddenly get a 160 of the new material into the space of an old 143, I'd do it in a second... pending funds. Screw being cool, I like my femurs.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[Pulse 0]

I had heard a rumor of the fabric in the 'low-bulk' reserves "stretching" after ten or so openings. Anyone else heard of this?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[justinb138 0]

Quote

My soon-to-be container is cut for a 150/143 combo. If I could suddenly get a 160 of the new material into the space of an old 143, I'd do it in a second... pending funds. Screw being cool, I like my femurs.

If you'd rather have the 160 than the 143, why'd you get a rig with the 143 in the first place?