KawiZX900 0 #1 January 13, 2003 just watcned a max x where a pilot crashed into the Kitty Hawk CV-63 and he had a round parachute that dumped hin into the burning inferno that was a 150 million dollar plane. why dont they give these guys ram air squares? they had them in the movie "behind enemy lines" it'd be cool if they had them in the real world Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lippy 918 #2 January 13, 2003 If you don't know how to fly a ram-air, it'll kill ya. I've seen an FJC fatality where the student flew a manta 288 straight into the ground. Maybe it'd be worth it to train pilots to fly them, but I'd imagine the military sees it as too much time/money to investI got nuthin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BPO 0 #3 January 13, 2003 What Lippy said, and.. if the pilot is unconscious the chances of surviving a landing under a round parachute are better than with ram-air parachutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #4 January 13, 2003 Quotewhy dont they give these guys ram air squares? You are assuming that the bail-out pilot is going to be alert and physically able to "fly" the canopy, which is rarely the case, except in hollywood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #5 January 13, 2003 Quotejust watcned a max x where a pilot crashed into the Kitty Hawk CV-63 and he had a round parachute that dumped hin into the burning inferno that was a 150 million dollar plane. why dont they give these guys ram air squares? they had them in the movie "behind enemy lines" it'd be cool if they had them in the real world Using the sunroof in a military aircraft is not a recreational activity, and generally constitutes an emergency in and of itself. Questions I ask pilots who have survived ejection are: 1) Where did you regain consciousness? 2) How long were you in the hospital? 3) Have you fully recovered yet? Once in a while you'll find someone who didn't have many bones broken or teeth knocked during the automated egress process. Having said that, punching out of an aircraft that is disassembling itself because the SAM you were dodging worked as advertised may be in a really unusual attitude well in excess of 450 knots. This may well be crippling or fatal as a matter of course. If the ejection/parachute system saves you at all, you should consider yourself ahead of the curve. If and how well you can steer the canopy thereafter may well be moot. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #6 January 13, 2003 Ask Triple F. He has first hand knowledge of this as he punched out of an A-4 many, many moons ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #7 January 13, 2003 Three factors mitigate against equipping fighter pilots with ram-air parachutes. First, certify ejection seats costs millions of dollars and takes many years. Since it takes so many years and millions of dollars to certify an ejection seat, I doubt if the US Air Force will specify ram-airs in any ejection seat until a 1990s graduate of the US Air Force Academy's skydiving program becomes a senior procurement officer in the Pentagon. Secondly, there is a political reason the US Navy does not use ram-air canopies in their ejection seats. Back in the early 1980s, a brilliant engineer named Manley Butler did a bunch of high speed test drops with ram-air canopies at the US Navy's parachute test facility on China Lake, California. Mr. Butler proven that ram-air canopies could open softly at high airspeeds and could be tailored to open quickly at low airspeeds, provided you used enough reefing lines, cutters, timers, etc. He also proved that ram-air canopies could be tailored to land softly, even when the pilot is unconscious. Mr. Butler may be a brilliant engineer, but he is not politically astute. After he p****d off his colleagues, they quietly dropped the ram-air project. The final factor mitigating against ram-airs in ejection seats is that pilots are an arrogant lot, who refuse to believe that they can mess up bad enough to ever need a parachute. This is the same logic that compels civilian pilots of 1.5 million dollar P-51 Mustangs to quibble over the cost of low speed parachutes. Trying to explain to them the advantages of wearing high speed parachutes or spending even more money on ram-air parachutes is worse than an annoyance. I have worked for three different factories that manufacture Pilot Emergency Parachutes, but have burnt out on explaining low-speed, vs. standard category vs. high-speed, etc. to pilots who just don't care. If you want my personal opinion, all Pilot Emergency Parachutes should be big squares, just like we give the first jump students. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #8 January 13, 2003 There used to be a Confederate Air Force pilot (they fly vintage airplanes) who had a silk emergency chute. This was in 1976. He was seriously bent out of shape that no one would pack it; his take was that he would fly his beloved airplane into the ground long before jumping out. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #9 January 13, 2003 QuoteHe was seriously bent out of shape that no one would pack it; Why wouldn't anybody pack it? That $40 every 90 days. Cha-ching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #10 January 13, 2003 Part of repacking is inspecting, and certifying that the canopy is still airworthy. A 30-year-old silk twill canopy is unlikely to be airworthy. There are riggers now who say they won't pack nylon reserves older than 20 years. It's their license on the line. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #11 January 13, 2003 The Navy and Air Force tested ram-airs for bailout rigs. I don't think they were for egress systems though. The rig I saw them jump was a 310 with a ZP top skin. There were no toggles or steering lines, just risers for control. This rig could be landed hands-off with a stand-up landing, granted you were facing into the wind. These jumps were conducted in the mid-90's in Ohio and i think AZ. I'm not sure of the outcome but, i don't think they bought the rigs. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #12 January 14, 2003 have any of yall seen the video of that russian pilot who ejected just several hundred feet off the deck and lived? you show me a ram air chute that can open that fast and still put you on the ground in one piece. That round just BARELY inflated as he touched down, but he lived, and thats all that counts in an ejection seat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #13 January 14, 2003 Quoteyou show me a ram air chute that can open that fast and still put you on the ground in one piece. Let me [free]pack you a competition CRW opening. It ain't called a "Lightning" for nothing. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #14 January 14, 2003 Quote Quote you show me a ram air chute that can open that fast and still put you on the ground in one piece. Let me [free]pack you a competition CRW opening. It ain't called a "Lightning" for nothing. Bob Got that right, and yeah, the cells are so big that you can use them as sleeping bags. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #15 January 14, 2003 Mesh slider on it tooHighly advise working out with CASA pilots a really nice cut in speed if you want to do CRW from a CASA.... Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #16 January 14, 2003 QuoteMesh slider on it too Slider? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #17 January 15, 2003 Next time you want to debate whether rounds or squares open quicker, watch a BASE jumper 90% of BASE jumpers wear squares because they can be tailored to open NOW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #18 January 15, 2003 quote:QuoteThe Navy and Air Force tested ram-airs for bailout rigs. I don't think they were for egress systems though. The rig I saw them jump was a 310 with a ZP top skin. There were no toggles or steering lines, just risers for control. This rig could be landed hands-off with a stand-up landing, granted you were facing into the wind. These jumps were conducted in the mid-90's in Ohio and i think AZ. I'm not sure of the outcome but, i don't think they bought the rigs.: end quote. A half-dozen companies competed for that USAF contract, but only one ever made it into production. Para-Gear will cheerfully sell you a 290-ish square foot Precision P-124A square canopy packed into a Rigging Innovations "Aviator" PEP harness/container. Precision designed the P-124A canopy specifically for PEP applications. At first glance the P124 looks like a Raven 282 -M reserve, but on closer examination you notice the lack of steering lines, thicker ribs and flatter trim. P124 tail lines are attached to the rear connector links and early versions were steered with rear risers. Jim West did a few manned test drops in Ohio before shipping the test items to Rigging Innovations. While working for R.I. I helped load P-124A test dummies into B-25 and CASA airplanes for the heavy weight/high speed drop tests. Once we had completed all the TSO C23D requirements, George Galloway encouraged us to continue adding more weight until we ran out of daylight. Despite exit weights exceeding 340 pounds and air speeds exceeding 205 knots, we were never able to tear any of the P-124A canopies. Later I got to make a few jumps on P124 Aviators when we tested the low speed end of the envelope. Consistent openings and slow descent got boring, so I did a few deliberate down wind landings with my hands off the toggles. All I got was a few bruises from landings softer than most of my landings under military rounds. Precision did the last few P124 drop tests at their factory in Tennessee. My last involvement with the P124 project was to write the packing manual for the P124/Aviator. The USAF never did buy P124Aviators, preferring to equip their AC130 gunners with light weight, low speed, piece of shit Phantoms packed into National containers, because the National product was "already in the military supply system". Did my last comment sound a touch biased? Rigging Innovations sold a batch of Aviators to the Swiss Air Force and is still building Aviators for civilians. My involvement with the P124 project convinced me that there are two classes of PEPs. Good PEPs contain large ram-air canopies, then there are the rest containing antiquated rounds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #19 January 15, 2003 There has been at least one "save" with an aviator. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #20 January 15, 2003 Cool, Thanks for the info!! The day of my first tandem I watched a couple test jumps in Xenia Ohio (including a malfunction!). That was in Oct 94. I was always curious as to the outcome, all i knew (according to Jim West) was that the military didn't go for the rigs. I couldn't remember the name of the main. He used one as a student canopy for several years, I got slammed by it once when I was a student! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
