"Rounds malfunction more often than squares" - do they?

[mikeat10500 9]

Quote

I have! Somewhere under 800 feet. Not something I ever want to do again. As far as rounds malfunctioning more than squares, The old saying goes "round is sound". I have seen thousands and thousands of round canopy jumps and been on nearly one hundred of them and have seen less malfunctions with rounds in all those jumps then I saw last week alone at the DZ. That being said I would still rather have a square reserve and main.

If rounds actually did malfunction more than squares, I believe it was because they were modified
to the point of not really being round anymore " such as a Para Comander" and people trying to pack as fast as we do today" can't get sloppy with a round...they like to mal ya know!!!" And yet now with the onset of new super high performance canopies I think we will see a clear winner in the "Who Mals The Most Wars".
...

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[dgskydive 0]

You are right. Only time well tell.

Dom

[mikkey 0]

I jumped round chutes from 1978 to 1980 (T-10, C-9 and Para Commander) - at that time you had to have 115 jumps before going square where I was living at the time (Scandinavia) and due to often windy weather it took some time to get to this jump number.
My recollection is that I saw less cut away's then what I would see now at an average DZ. That does not mean there were fewer mal-functions. Let me explain:
1) Rounds can take more damage. I saw people landing rounds safely with line burns, missing sections and even minor line overs ("Mae West's").
2) People who jumped rounds, normally had chest mounted reserves (often without pilot chute) which you could deploy as an additional chute if you had a damaged or partial inflated main (these things don't spin that easy). Para Commanders were slightly different but still not as violent as a modern squares.
3) Line twists were common, but would normally not require cut away, rounds would not spin like modern square. If you had line twists you just had to do a lot of kicking.
The equipment in general was however not as good as today, from deployment systems, to releases (ever tried a cut-away with Capewells?), to AAD's (the good old KAP's had a tendency to fire when you were practising track - ).
So - all in all a very different thing - you can not really compare. We definitely had a few bruises and broken bones from hard landings - and we had lot of off-DZ landings (including trees and picking people off power lines) - but you would not as easily be killed making a bad landing decision like you see today.

On the other hand you had people with no-pulls waiting for their spring loaded pilot chute to come out of the burble on their back, we had people killed due to low or no reserve pulls due to the equipment used etc.

So it was not more safe - it was just different.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kesaltukari 0]

Malfuntions on rounds with anti-inversion netting happen rarely to never. Square malfunctions happen far more frequently.

[mjosparky 3]

Two things, the deployment device of a round canopy is to stage deployment and reduce snatch force. Rounds have an inherent malfunction rate. It has to do with loading the lines at a different time. Unless you can load all the lines at the same time a round wants to invert. Ram air canopies have a 99.9% reliability rate. The data to support this is at China Lake.
There is a "man-capable reserve" that uses a slider. It is called the Thin Pack or Dura Pack. It is manufactured by Simula and was developed for the Navy to replace their air crew systems. It was TSO'ed under TSO-C23c and I did the live test jumps on it. The slider concept on rounds has been around since the late 40's
Sparky
AERO
Manager, Air Drop Division, Ret.

Simula site.
http://www.simula.com/personnel/

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Two things, the deployment device of a round canopy is to stage deployment and reduce snatch force. Rounds have an inherent malfunction rate. It has to do with loading the lines at a different time. Unless you can load all the lines at the same time a round wants to invert. Ram air canopies have a 99.9% reliability rate. The data to support this is at China Lake.
There is a "man-capable reserve" that uses a slider. It is called the Thin Pack or Dura Pack. It is manufactured by Simula and was developed for the Navy to replace their air crew systems. It was TSO'ed under TSO-C23c and I did the live test jumps on it. The slider concept on rounds has been around since the late 40's
Sparky
AERO
Manager, Air Drop Division, Ret.

Simula site.
http://www.simula.com/personnel/

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

Butler Parachute Systems also manufactures a sliderized series of man-rated canopies. The HX-300 to 600 series are TSOed under C23D specifically for pilots of high speed military surplus warbirds.
For some truly exciting videos of round canopy malfunctions, visits BPS' website!

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Butler Parachute Systems also manufactures a sliderized series of man-rated canopies. The HX-300 to 600 series are TSOed under C23D specifically for pilots of high speed military surplus warbirds.
For some truly exciting videos of round canopy malfunctions, visits BPS' website!

Rob,
I have seen some video from some of the early tests of the "Sombrero" slider in use. It seems to work really well as a reefing system for high speeds. Do you know how it works at lower speeds and weight?
Do you know who's 24' conical is coming apart on his home page. It does not appear to have any staging at all.
Thanks for the link.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

mjosparky,

According to Butler, the HX-series - with BAT Sliders - inflate equally as well at low airspeeds.

They sent me a video tape of drop tests that illustrates (C-9, Preserve, Phantom, Butler XTC-series and Butler HX-series round canopy) deployments at a wide variety of airspeeds and weights. My conclusion from watching all that video is that the BAT slider reefs well at high airspeeds and spreads the skirt at low airspeeds. At both ends of the envelope, the BAT Slider works hard to "organize" the skirt.
That video tape also includes test drops of C-9, Preserve and Phantom canopies. Butler tore up several Preserve and Phantom canopies near the upper end of their envelopes.
Criticise Butler all you want for a negative advertising campaign, but he illustrated conclusively that light-weight, low speed (TSO C23B) canopies should not be worn by crew of high-speed airplanes.
Butler also loaned us an HX-300 test drop canopy as a training aid for a recent riggers' course. Packing with the BAT Slider is ridiculously easy .. really only one extra step before closing the diaper, and the increase in pack volume is insignificant.

On a completely different topic: do you know how to get ahold of Dennis Trepannier (metal worker who lives near LA)?

[mjosparky 3]

I have never criticized Butler on any of his advertising. But I do criticize him for his bad mouthing of other manufactures and their products when the other manufactures are not present. When he talks to them face to face he sings a different song. I have seen this repeatedly at the last several SAFE symposiums. And the light weight, low speed sports canopies were never designed to be worn by the crews of high speed aircraft. That is what canopies designed in the standard category were for. An example would be the ParaInovators R-4. It came in a low speed, block constructed version and biased constructed standard category version. If I remember right the lines were also different.

Yes, I do know how to get ahold of Dennis. PM me a number to reach you and I will pass it on to him.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[councilman24 36]

But is it the square that's malfunctioning or it's lines, brakes, sliders? The diaper and anti-nversion netting have greatly reduced the round malfunctions, usually partial inversions. I have a couple hundred round jumps (PC) and three round reserve rides. Two on a crossbow reserve (basically a lopo type) with modications without mesh, no diaper, and from an old SST prototype. Hmmm, and I lived? The other is on a Phantom 24'. The malfunctions were ram airs two with tension knots in the steering lines and one with blown up steering lines.
If you make the best possible round reserve and the best possible ram air reserve I don't know how they'd come out. But the best possible round reserve was never made. I don't think any RESERVES were made with anti-inversion netting.

Another round reserve with a "slider" is the Strong Aerosport. It has a spider slider, two pieces of webbing sewn in an X with a grommet at each end. The lines go through the grommets in four groups. The slider is held below the skirts by two piece of supension line sewn between lines that limit the upward travel of the slider. The slider is the first thing stowed on the FREE SLEEVE after the locking stows and the rest of the lines are stowed on the sleeve. I service two of these. S/Ns in the thirties.

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

[mjosparky 3]

How are you? And do you have a data on this claim?
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

I agree with you about Manley Butler not being the best PR man. Hee! Hee!

[mikeat10500 9]

Quote

Malfuntions on rounds with anti-inversion netting happen rarely to never. Square malfunctions happen far more frequently.

Quote

How are you? And do you have a data on this claim?
Sparky

Does a pilot chute qualify as a round with anti-inversion netting?

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.