AceJack

Thanks sparkey thats the answer that I'm looking for. Without that bit of insight I could not for the life of me figure out why a smaller parachute would blow up. It seems that the quicker fill time coupled with the fact that it takes longer for a heavier object to decelerate would cause the canopy to open at higher airspeed and overstress the canopy. I do realize that there are many variables affecting the opening sequence and that I'm oversimplifying things. I will however get a copy of the book you recommended as I find this subject fascinating. I apologize if I seem to come across as a smartass and a know it all. This was not my intention. Thats why I want to stress again that I am a newbie. I do not proclaim to be right or wrong on any subject. I am merely presenting the information I gathered from reading this forum and questioning it to further my understanding. Some of my comments are directed only to those who want to discredit me without giving any real information. To the rest of you, thank you, you've been extremely helpful.

Ah, I see so parachutes are not normally designed to handle the load if they are opened fully at terminal speed and it's the reefing system not the overall drag of the parachute that is more important in keeping the parachute from blowing up upon deployment. I agree that when you apply a force to an object to slow it down. A more massive object would take longer to slow. But, if you were to measure the force to slow an object down, wouldn't the measurement be equivalent to the force opposing the movement not the weight of the object? Quote: "A heavier guy falls faster." That's why I mentioned that it is the same guy falling at the same speed. Only the size of the canopy is changed. Are the smaller canopy built weaker than the larger ones? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Like I said before I am inexperienced in this sport. The statement I made before is just a conclusion from I've read from certain posts. It is more of a hypothesis or rather a question to this subject, not facts. Thanks to those who were able to answer some of the questions. To those who just like to say that I'm wrong, maybe it is just easier to pick on the guy who has different opinion and don't have the backing of the general consensus. You still have not provided any explanation to why I'm wrong. You ridicule me on my lack of experience and lack of things to back up what I say, well what real knowledge do you have and what do you have to back up what you say. Like I said, I'm here to learn I'm all ears. BTW why do I go against what everyone has to say? Maybe because at one time everyone thought the world is flat and someone was not afraid to question it.

Hi all, I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I've been reading this thread and can't help but to chime in. Although I am a layman to this subject and new to the sport I actually agree with Phoenix and think what he have to say have merit. I totally believe that airspeed have more affect on peak loads than weight. I don't have any fancy mathematical formula but if you look at this problem from another perspective, you may see that what he says might be true. Example: You take a heavy guy and he deploys his large 'chute at a certain speed. You will get a X number of force as he decelerate. Now you take the same guy and have him deploy a much smaller (overloaded) 'chute at the same airspeed you should not get more force. In fact, you should get less force due to less drag from the smaller 'chute. Yes, the smaller canopy will fall somewhat faster for a longer period of time, this should not cause the canopy to blow up because you are well within the design parameter (airspeed) of that canopy. Remember, the forces generated here is not the same as if you tie a weight to a fixed object and drop it. With that said, I am assuming that the smaller 'chute is made with the same construction techniques and material as the bigger chute and of the same strength. I am also assuming the two 'chutes have similar opening speed as each other. I know that is a lot to assume but I am keeping those two factors the same for the sake of argument. And as for the max recommended weight on the canopy, I think that has more to do with the sink rate and the speed it would fly when you try to land it. I know I'm going to catch a lot flak by going against the grain here but I'm here to learn and so far I've learned a lot by reading different opinions.