shadeland

Objection! PDs and Optimums are the same size. They're measured in the same way. And no, PD has not misnamed their reserves, they are exactly the size they are labelled, when measured by PD's method. Their charts say otherwise: PD Reserve - 143| Span: 16.27 Chord: 8.25 Aspect Ratio: 2.1:1 Sqft: 134.2 PD Optimum - 143| Span: 17.33 Chord: 8.25 Aspect Ratio: 2.1:1 Sqft: 143 It would seem an Optimum is slightly bigger than the PDR of the same model size, unless there's other reasons for the discrepancy. The Optimums are pretty much 143 sqft by the math, while the PDR 143 is 134 sqft in the other direction of what Quagmirian said.

What's the turnaround time for replacement parts? Handles, freebags, etc. The company is based in SA, are there US-based distributors?

Joellercoaster has the right answer here. To suppilment this, and from John Le Blanc's talk, I put together diagrams of planforms from various canopies for my canopy course. The first image shows three planforms. The next shows you what they represent. Even the navigator is tapered, and would probably be considered "semi-ellipitcal". Not many non-reserves are rectangular. I can't think of any modern canopy that is. Fun fact: The original Sabre is completely rectangular: No tapering.

It is interesting that they decided to split up the requirements, as I read it, you can't do that, the 220 lb test must pass all requirements, so it would not be possible to certify small reserves without a waiver of some kind. I agree that does not make sense for ram airs, esp since wind speed makes groundspeed so variable, so I just want to know the descent rate. What is the glide ratio of a typical reserve with brakes stowed? Regarding the max weight for my PDR143, the manual has not caught up with the website apparently, as it still shows a max of 171lb. I agree that is not unusual, still I wonder if my incapacitated stowed landing is survivable or not under it. This whole conversation started from someone saying that they believed the Optimums landed faster compared to other reserves. The original basis for that belief was that they learned form PD that PD had obtained a waiver from the FAA to allow a faster overall speed or descent speed. I think the waiver probably came for a different reason, the reason we're discussing now. I think that it wasn't the PD Optimums were faster, it's that under C23D there was that incompatability for ram air reserves. So I believe they obtained a waiver for both PD Optimums and PD Reserves, and the same is true for the other reserve manufacturers who tested under C23D (otherwise they could not possibly have C23D certified reserves under about 180 sqft). Perhaps your reserve was an earlier version of the PDR that was tested under a different TSO? Or they just revised the speeds based on new information. As to whether your landing would be survivable, I suspect yes in descent conditions (not downwind, clear and open field, dirt and not concrete), but I don't have really any basis for that other than eyeballing my approach speed on my Optimum 143 (WL 1.4). So my confidence is not high there. Though you'd probably break stuff.

Icarus pretty much says that on their Icarus Reserve page: The weights listed below are MAXIMUM weights required to comply with all certification requirements set under TSO C23d and ETSO C23d for minimum(1) load and maximum allowable total velocity(2). 1) SAE8015b requires minimum weight to be demonstrated of 255 lb 2) SAE 8015b requires a maximum total velocity under open canopy of 36 ft/s They're faced with somewhat incompatible (at least from a market perspective) requirements from a ram air persecptive: The minimum max load to be tested is 220 lbs, yet the total speed must be under 36 ft/s (25 MPH). That probably makes sense for emergency round rigs, but with those requirements on a ram-air you wouldn't be able to have a canopy smaller than about 180 sqft. I show the max weight for a PDR-143 based on their site to be 200 lbs for expert (254 lbs do-not-exceed). http://www.performancedesigns.com/products/pdreserve/ That would likely exceed 36 ft/s. By how much? I don't know. You're at 1.4 WL, which doesn't sound too crazy for a controlled landing. But a no-input landing might be different.

You may be right, but I think the overall TSO weight mimnum (220 lbs for C23d) would put the PDR 99/PD Optimum over the limits for descent and total speed. (found AS8015 here: http://avstop.com/ac/prh/appendixa_27.html) 4.3.7 states that descent rate shall not exceed 24 feet/s (~16 MPH), and total speed shall not exceed 36 feet/s (~24 MPH) in unaltered post deployment (brakes stowed). It sounds like they got a waiver for that particular requirement for both PDR and PD Optimum. Icarus did not (though they may have gotten a waiver for minimum demonstrated weight). From Icarus Reserve page: "The weights listed below are MAXIMUM weights required to comply with all certification requirements set under TSO C23d and ETSO C23d for minimum1 load and maximum allowable total velocity2."

I have posted about this before on this site. At the 2005 Symposium, a friend and I were sitting in a restaurant with one of the 'major players' of PD. During the course of that discussion, he informed me that PD had gotten/obtained an exemption to the 'total velocity' req'ment of the TSO standard because their Optimum canopies exceeded the standard. By how much, I have no idea. I do not have anything in writing regarding this conversation. I was not told to keep this information to myself. Jerry Baumchen PS) I just did a quick review of all of the TSO standards & 'total velocity' first comes up in C23d, AS8015, Rev. B. It states ' . . . the total velocity shall not exceed 36 ft/s (11.0 m/s), in an unaltered post deployment configuration . . . ' Note that this is airspeed and not ground speed. If the dummy or you are going downwind, you will possibly be exceeding these limits. I think there's an answer (or at least, an incomplete answer) to my original question: TL;DR Optimums would fly slower than their lower sized PDR counterpart. A PD Optimum 160 would (all things being equal) fly slower (total velocity, in both vertical and horizontal component) for a given wingloading than a PDR 143. Jerry had learned at a symposium at the Optimums exceed the TSO standard for total velocity, and that may be the origin of the assumption (a reasonable one) that Optimums descend faster than non-Optimums (or other canopies). I believe now that not the case. I think that both the Optimums and current PDRs also exceed the TSO standard for total velocity, as demonstrated by their maximum allowed weight. If you look at the Optimums and PDRs, they both allow WL around 2.0. I have to imagine that 36 ft/s (24 MPH) will be exceeded on almost any wing at 2.0. The Aerodyne Smart reserves also allow maximum weights that put WL above 2.0. Interestingly enough, the Icarus reserves and Icarus Nano reserves both have maximum wingloadings at 1.3ish. My guess is they didn't get a waiver for the total velocity. I would speculate that the waiver was granted because typically the pilot of the wing can flare and place the total velocity well within standard. If no inputs are made though, the landing could of course be bad. With that, my assumption now is that yes, an PD Optimum of a higher size will lower your descent speed compared to a smaller wing (PDR one size small). More data is needed however.

I may just do that later this year with a PDR 113 and Optimum 126 and take along a Flysight.

I don't disagree with anything you said there. I follow the same outlook for the most part. No gear can prevent a bad outcome in all situations, however we can improve our chances with the choice of gear (AAD versus no AAD, helmet versus no helmet, snag-resistant camera mounts, etc.) The fundamental question I'm asking is are we bettering our chances with LPV reserves versus standard. I've heard more than once that the Optimum flies as fast (horiztonal+vertical) as a PDR one size smaller, negating the benefit of having more fabric over your head (the assumption that more fabric over your head leads to a slower speed, resulting in lower kinetic energy when impacting the big-blue rock or structures upon it). I'm asking A) Is it true (while I've heard it said, I've seen zero data to support it) B) More generally, can we better our outcomes in an unconscious scenario with a size larger reserve My assumption on B has been that yes, more fabric the better. If that's not the case, then there's no need for an LPV reserve (or at least, no need for an Optimum). I'm confident I can safely land a reserve several sizes larger than my current one when conscious. Again, I fully accept that unconscious scenarios are not ideal, and could lead to bad outcomes. But they do happen, they are survivable (with a little luck), otherwise AADs wouldn't help much. To what degree can we help our chances, however, by a size larger reserve? Is the delta between a size so small that it doesn't much matter? Or are we doubling our chances? I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, but we really don't have much to go on.

I would say kinetic energy is the only important factor. Those are the forces on the body at impact with the ground. Specifically, I'm referring to unconscious, no input landings (with brakes stowed). There's a lot of factors involved in those forces, how much and how they're spread out (hitting the ground versus hitting the sider of a building, for example) but it starts with the forward speed (horizontal and vertical component) of the reserve in question. Kinetic energy is NOT the only important factor. Hitting at a shallow angle is of course very different than straight down. Both scenarios could be at the same speed, so same kinetic energy. Fair point, but in this case kentic energy is the primary factor we have influence while unconscious: the size of our reserve. Glancing blows (level impact) or direct blows (side of building) will influence outcome as well, but that’s more luck of the draw.

It would seem that's not the case. Among other caveats from the FAQ: "For this reason, we recommend that you have at least 50 jumps on a canopy (landing accurately and comfortably on your feet) that is approximately two (2) sizes SMALLER than the Horizon you plan to use for wingsuiting." Also: "Performance Designs recommends utilizing the Horizon for the purpose that it was designed and developed for. This will help ensure that you get the best performance and longevity out of your Horizon while using it for wingsuiting." So, probably not a good choice for non-wing suiting given the OPs status as non-wingsuiter. PD does have the Silhouette, which is a lower pack volume main apprpriaate for general jumping and beginners (at the appropriate wing loading). For low bulk regular jumping, there's Aerodyne Pilot in ZPX (about a size smaller) and UltraLPV (maybe 2 sizes smaller, not sure). The same for the Pilot 7 (which is good for wing suiting, but Aerodyne says its also good for regular jumping). I've seen a few ZPXs around, but not the UltraLPV.

I would say kinetic energy is the only important factor. Those are the forces on the body at impact with the ground. Specifically, I'm referring to unconscious, no input landings (with brakes stowed). There's a lot of factors involved in those forces, how much and how they're spread out (hitting the ground versus hitting the sider of a building, for example) but it starts with the forward speed (horizontal and vertical component) of the reserve in question.

I have posted about this before on this site. At the 2005 Symposium, a friend and I were sitting in a restaurant with one of the 'major players' of PD. During the course of that discussion, he informed me that PD had gotten/obtained an exemption to the 'total velocity' req'ment of the TSO standard because their Optimum canopies exceeded the standard. I was looking at the maximums for various reserves. The PD Optimum 126, for example, would put me personally at about 1.5 WL. The stated never exceed maximum is 254 lbs, which would be about a 2.0 loading. My guess is that at a 2.0 loading that would exceed the TSO standard for landing speed (but that's just a guess). Compared to the Icarus Nano 126, the maximum weight is 167, which is about 1.3 WL. That is probably under the TSO limit (again, just a guess).

Are we sure about that? There are AAD fires for unconscious jumpers that land wingloadings in the range we're talking about, and are survivable. Even major injury free (limp bodies can sometimes pull that off). It's not ideal, and of course you're at the mercy of where you land, if its downwind, etc, and you go from a dusting to far more serious injuries quickly... But what is the delta? Worth buying an LPV or na? We're lacking a lot of data here. In the absence, we've made some assumptions. In some cases, those assumptions are discussed as if proven facts.

Full flight I wouldn't care as much about. Hopefully if if the toggles are popped it's because I'm conscious, and then I'm not as worried about landing a reserve. It's my impact speed unconscious. Is that speed going to be similar between an optimum 160 and PDR 143, or a Optimum 143 and a PDR 126, etc. Or will more fabric mean a lower speed/lower kinetic energy. If it's the same, I'll just buy a PDR.

I've heard this a few times: PD Optimums, despite being a size bigger, have roughly the same descent/forward speed as a a PDR one size smaller, negating most of the benefit of having a larger reserve for unconscious/no input landings. Flight configuration would be brakes stowed, unconscious landing. People get low bulk reserves partly because the assumption is the landing speed (ground impact speed) would presumably be lower with the lower wing loading. Example: A Optimum 160 would land about as hard as a PDR 143 (the next size down). I've heard that from a few riggers, but I haven't seen any data to support that. I've got two rides on an Optimum 143, but of course I don't have anything to compare it to (or quantitative data). Does anyone have any data to support or refute this? Is this one of the factesque things that gets widely reported and thus taken as fact? Can someone from PD chime in? "It's been widely report John, and that makes it fact-esque" -Stephen Colbert. (Reposting this because initially I used the term "forward speed" to describe the kinetic energy effect on a human instead of "forward/descent" and the first two comments concentrated on that. I re-worded it to be more clear).

I should have been more specific, but yeah I mean forward/descent speed. Impact speed, essentially. I'd be willing to hook one of each up for a test jump.

I've heard this a few times: PD Optimums, despite being a size bigger, have roughly the same forward speed as a a PDR one size smaller, negating most of the benefit of having a larger reserve for unconscious/no input landings. Example: A Optimum 160 would land about as hard as a PDR 143 (the next size down). I've heard that from a few riggers, but I haven't seen any data to support that. I've got two rides on an Optimum 143, but of course I don't have anything to compare it to (or quantitative data). Does anyone have any data to support or refute this? Is this one of the factesque things that gets widely reported and thus taken as fact? Can someone from PD chime in? "It's been widely report John, and that makes it fact-esque" -Stephen Colbert.

I've found that Safires (2s and 3s) and Pilots are susceptible to too-long brake lines. If your brake lines are even an inch too long, you'll miss out on about 30% of the flare on the bottom end. Where as a Sabre 2 or Crossfire has more power evenly throughout, so if the brake lines are too long it doesn't affect the bottom end as much. At least that's what I've found.

What's LES? I was going by their website, which still mentions Skyhook.

I confirmed with Sife, they do not have a USA TSO certification. It cannot be jumped legally in the US by US citizens, though foreign visitors may be able to jump it (though I think the reserve needs to be packed/sealed by a FAA certified rigger)

I've got both. I have a Crossfire 2 129 loaded at about 1.4, and a Crossfire 3 109 loaded at about 1.7. The Crossfire 3 is pretty different than the 2. Probably the most notable difference is it is trimmed steeper. The Crossfire 2 is trimmed flat, which means it will get you back from a fairly long spot. Not as flat as a Pilot, but pretty close. The Crossfire 3 is trimmed more nose-down. The recovery arc is longer than the Crossfire 2, so you'll lose more altitude in a turn. I have to start my pattern higher with the 3 than the 2. The Crossfire 3 also opens quicker than the 2. Not fast, but quicker. The Crossfire 2 has probably the softest opening of any canopy I've jumped. The Crossfire 3 is still quite comfortable, but the deceleration is a bit more. They're both fun canopies, but fairly different. Crossfire 3 = more aggressive. Crossfire 2, not as aggressive. Though both are more aggressive than say, a Sabre 2 at the same wing loading.

EASA doesn't regulate the manufacturing of sport parachutes since 2006. I don't care what the manufacturer claims. They do not have an FAA or EASA TSO. Based on the EU law, if it's approved in one of the EU countries, the rest should allowed it too. That's the loophole they are using. Funny times ahead with the Brexit. It can happen that since TS only have the UK approval, some EU countries might ban their products once UK leave the union.... Does Thomas Sport have an FAA TSO?

TSO is a US FAA standard, though other countries adopt its methodologies. It doesn’t look like Sife has a TSO approval from the US FAA (or at least it’s realllly not clear), which would mean you can’t jump it in the us unless you’re a non-US visitor.

^^ This ^^ Speaking of non-US manufacturers, there's a company (Avalon) out of Bulgaria that does license the SkyHook (no TSO I believe). That's the 5th SkyHook equipped manufacturer that I know about in the sport market. * UPT (designer) * Aerodyne * Sunpath Javelin * Vortex * Avalon