Changable main containers - possible?

[councilman24 37]

In the disability forum someone asked about "small people" jumping. An idea came to mind. I wonder if it would be possible to design a rig with exchangable main containers. If you start with the premise that a particular reserve is appropriate for a particular jumper, but with experience smaller main canopies are appropriate, it seems that it would be an advantage to change main containers on the same harness/reserve system.

Their was an old rig that I can't remember the name of now where the containers were movable. ParaPro? The reserve was just like a chest mount. It could be put on the back and the main container below it. If you wanted you could use the reserve as a chest mount and move the main container farther up on your back. There were two sets of zippers on the back for the different main and reserve container positions, IIRC.
So, a harness and reserve container like usual. A back pad and main riser covers that extend below the reserve container as now. But some how integrate into a main container that is exchangable. Length top to bottom could vary, maybe the depth (thickness). The width maybe not.

Hmmm, seems possible. The main container just has to be secure on the rig and secure in it's closure. On some of the old rigs like an original Northern lite or Wonder hog almost all you would have to do is change the bottom flap. With modern designs and the desire for complete riser covers it would be a little more complicated.

But main containers don't really do much. You might even be able to have the top flap permantly mounted and replace the sides, bottom and floor.

Of course the business model and profit for the H/C manufacturers might not be as good. Jumpers keeping one harness and reserve until they are worn out, changing main containers to down size.

Just a thought excercise..........until I dig out an old rig and start playing.

Okay, I'm tired. Is this as stupid as it seems when I reread it?

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

[altichick 1]

Interesting idea... however in the case of a 2 out isn't it better to have similar sized main/reserve canopies? Sticking with one sized reserve throughout your progressions would make it likely that at some point you have a big difference between the two.

Also at some point it's gonna start to look real ugly when you have a 'student' sized reserve sat on top of your teeny hot canopy... might make head down easier though!!

Don't sweat the petty things... and don't pet the sweaty things!

[mjosparky 4]

Terry,

With your knowledge and experience you know dam well it is possible. Now will it ever be done? I doubt it. Too much bull shit to wade through.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MB38 0]

What if so-called "spacers" were integrated into a d-bag? The d-bag would always fit the container, the container would stay nice and hefty. There could be a thin d-bag... for the largest canopy the container could hold. There could also be a d-bag with a bunch of padding on the appropriate sides - integrated into the d-bag - making a 120 in the padded bag the same size as a 210 in the thin bag.

My inexperienced and ignorant self can already think of many problems with a system such as this but it's just a random 2:00 AM on a Saturday night idea. I guess just break the "spacers" or "padding" idea down and use it in a different [more appropriate] way. I'm sure there's a way.

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

[popsjumper 2]

You guys are the pros... but I was thinking about an inflatable pack tray (one-time blow up, swap out d-bag to fit main size) or an inflatable d-bag (pain-in-the-ass blowing up every pack job) with a plug that gets pulled by the pilot chute coming out.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[riggerrob 643]

MB38,
You are thinking along a well-proven track, just think about a variety of pillows temporarily sewn, snapped, or tied into the main container.

[rushboy 0]

How about integrating pockets into the main pack tray that would allow the jumper (or their rigger) to add/remove spacers to/from around the D-bag?

If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space.

[riggerrob 643]

Strong Enterprises tried that back in the 1970s.

They also tried a main container with multiple grommets in each flap. However, they also found out that if brass grommets start to loosen and theyoverlap, they can lock together in a variety of exciting and un-planned ways. Maybe Strong's old concept would work if you updated it with modern stainless steel grommets and Mirage's "grommet protector flaps."

[riggerrob 643]

Last year, on this forum, someone mentioned seeing a european (?) classic style and accuracy team with extra main flaps that Velcroed onto the outside of their rigs.
The concept was that they could jump small Stilettos while turning style, but quickly convert the same harness to hold a bulky Para-Foil with double the surface area.
Starting with a Northern Lite 3 or Vector 3, it should be possible to keep the original main top flap and riser covers, just substituting much larger side and bottom flaps..

[PeteS 0]

I think Strong did just that in the 70's, with zippers. To convert bulky rigs to slim and trim of the day.

[JerryBaumchen 1,464]

Hi Terry,

As I recall, Pioneer (when they finally released it in about '68 or so) called it the ParaTwin. They had made the very first Experimental ones in about '66 (these were made of cotton & had a rather large red EXPERIMENTAL on them). They had to do something to beat the patent that Security had on a reserve placed adjacent to to the main; Security patented the reserve on the top of the main, on the side(s) of the main & on the bottom of the main.

Not too much later (about '68-'69), Security brought out their version of the same thing. They both used zippers to hold things on the back-pad.

One problem of switching the reserve from the back to the front was that if you were going forward when using a back-mounted reserve, then you would be going in reverse when using a front-mounted reserve. So some folks put the reserve in the container sideway; you were always going sideways no matter where the reserve was mounted.

After Dan Poynter returned from Europe with the '67 US Team, he and Strong began developing the StyleMaster (and to compete with the Mini-System). When these rigs came out (in '68, I think), people gave up on the idea of switching things around and just went with the high chest mounted reserves; both the Pioneer & Security versions had rather low chest mounted reserves.

Just more trivia to fill up the memory cells.

[councilman24 37]

The idea wasn't to fill up a main container that is too big. But to make it smaller.

We've been sewing pillows in containers for years. Well, kinda stopped now but did in the 80's and early 90's.

I'd forgotten about the Strong rigs with multiple grommets. Gromment lock was a bitch.

The french rigs are interesting. Wonder how velcro holds well enough.

But IIRC the knights cutaway rigs had the cutaway main on top of the regular main. I assume with another set of flaps. I never liked this idea. It ment that if for some reason you had to abandon the cutaway demo you couldn't open you real main. In the 80's I added a set of removable three ring harness rings to the main lift webs of a rig. Had risers with cutaway cables sewn to the risers. Built a simple container for with a throw out pilot chute on the bottom. Go out open the front canopy. Hold one three ring shut, filp the other cable out. Hold the streamer with two fingers until you let go of the three ring. Back in free fall with a normal rig. Wanted the container to leave with the canopy but never got around to working it out.

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

[riggermick 7]

Quote

In the disability forum someone asked about "small people" jumping. An idea came to mind. I wonder if it would be possible to design a rig with exchangable main containers. If you start with the premise that a particular reserve is appropriate for a particular jumper, but with experience smaller main canopies are appropriate, it seems that it would be an advantage to change main containers on the same harness/reserve system.

Their was an old rig that I can't remember the name of now where the containers were movable. ParaPro? The reserve was just like a chest mount. It could be put on the back and the main container below it. If you wanted you could use the reserve as a chest mount and move the main container farther up on your back. There were two sets of zippers on the back for the different main and reserve container positions, IIRC.
So, a harness and reserve container like usual. A back pad and main riser covers that extend below the reserve container as now. But some how integrate into a main container that is exchangable. Length top to bottom could vary, maybe the depth (thickness). The width maybe not.

Hmmm, seems possible. The main container just has to be secure on the rig and secure in it's closure. On some of the old rigs like an original Northern lite or Wonder hog almost all you would have to do is change the bottom flap. With modern designs and the desire for complete riser covers it would be a little more complicated.

But main containers don't really do much. You might even be able to have the top flap permantly mounted and replace the sides, bottom and floor.

Of course the business model and profit for the H/C manufacturers might not be as good. Jumpers keeping one harness and reserve until they are worn out, changing main containers to down size.

Just a thought excercise..........until I dig out an old rig and start playing.

Okay, I'm tired. Is this as stupid as it seems when I reread it?

Hi Terry,

I thought of this when I was designing the Reflex and even built a few test rigs. The biggest problem I found with this concept was that when a smaller or larger main was installed against a fixed reserve container and back pad it looked like shit!! It's a very doable concept but with very limited marketability. Most jumpers are way too fashionable to even consider this concept.

Reserve vertical wall hight and width are the biggest limiters for this concept followed by the back pad length and width. Because of these restrictions the size differences of main canopies is also very limited, making it more trouble than it was worth to make. Most people would not want to buy a rig that looks "deformed" so I shelved the idea. Additionally hiding all of the previous "bullet holes" on riser covers, pack trays etc was a pain in the ass. Adding additional cammoflage on those areas just didn't look right.

Mick.

[councilman24 37]

Hey Mick,

I kind of thought the looks issue might me a problem. Like I said, it was late last night.

Just a thought excercise. Glad to hear you tried it on a modern rig.

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

[hookitt 1]

I think modular rigs may be a little closer to reality than people think. Many older designs are prohibitive of a good method to make the main tray replacable. Newer rig designs are always in the works, it's a matter of someone having the time and facilities to produce a usable model.

Rig manufacturers tend to make rigs just like old rigs with "new and innovative" features that quite resemble everything else ... "only different"... sort of. Catch my drift?

If looks weren't a factor, it would have happenend already. People are picky when it comes to sport applications so I doubt it will happen there first, but down the road a piece, it's quite probable.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I kind of thought the looks issue might me a problem.

There was a time when that was a true statement.And that is all I will say about that......for now.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!