Seems that the Navy’s statement that Mil-C-5040 is “Inactive for New Design” contemplates that it’s still active for old designs. Otherwise the Navy’s solicitation would be silent as to the very existence of Mil-C-5040 specs. Does this make sense?
It does yes. I also agree with you that material with this spec is still more than worth it for general uses, except that jumpers may wish to dig deeper on what is new, it's their lives I mean. when you stated that there was no "Official Rating" for the 14 strand Type V, rather it's "modified Type 4", I'd still trust that rope on the ground or as a general purpose cord on a survival kit.
vectran, spectra/microline and kevlar come to mind. But each alternative to nylon paracord that I’ve looked into has negatives (particularly in regard to land based survival), such as, by way of example, fraying, wear limitations, brittleness, a more limited useful life or even UV degradation.
This is extremely interesting, do you have comparison documentation you can provide?
And I still would like to know with certainty the degree to which the PIA-C-5040 series of specs have superceded the Mil-C-5040H specs in military procurement; I gathered that the PIA specs had during my conversation with the owner of one of the largest suppliers of paracord to the military — and that the PIA specs were evolving rapidly.
That is the main focus target for paracords now then I think: to understand MIL-C-5040 vs PIA-C-5040, and who from MFG is using MIL and who is using PIA.
And then consider that the P-9 parachutes in “pretty much all current U.S. jet fighters” use “Suspension line material- PIA-C-5040 Type III”. Could elasticity be the key paracord element in regard to jet parachutes?
Way out of my league to comment, except of this part: would the elasticity component factor on Jet cord specs have the same weight on its need on jumpers?
Previous Topic
Index
