JerryBaumchen

Hi Cloudi & Terry, Cloudi) I would be a happy camper if PD would put out some numbers on volume. I had a hour long telecon with John LeBlanc back in Jan and the one thing is sure; PD will NOT give anyone any numbers on volume. Read that as: NONE. I could live with some numbers even if the infamouse 150 Whizbanger II was listed as being between 375 cu in & 405 cu in. But PD will not. Terry) I order all of my bluejeans from Lands End. I give them the waist & the inseam. I have never had a pair that did not fit. Would you accept two pair of jeans where you tried on one pair at X waist & Y inseam and it fit, but when you got home the 2nd pair were 3" longer in the inseam? I know that I would return them. Now who wants return their 150 Whizbanger II when you have waited 10 weeks for that custom-colored sweety but it just is 'really' tight when you pack it into your brand new SlimTrim container? I have a friend (he's been jumping for 35 yrs, 2000 jumps) who just bought a brand new rig. He specified the canopies (main & reserve) in detail. Every pack job he struggles to get the main closed, it is simply (IMO) too tight. Yet he did everything that is now considered OK in this parachute equipment world. Also, after assembling and packing his reserve (very tight) I told him to never bring it back to me again. Try to understand, I am just trying to get a grip on this continuing problem. I may never get any farther along than where we are currently at but I would like to take a stab at. As I indicated, I could live with any numbers as long as they came from the canopy mfrs themselves. Thanks, Jerry

Hi Guys, I agree 100% with you. However, IMO I do not think that that is the best way. Now, with all of the variables in canopy construction, that just might be the best way for now. I am an engineer, been one for 35 yrs, this makes me want to try to eliminate/control some of these variables. As an engineer, I do not like this situation where a 150 Whizbanger II will vary by 10% or more. I would like to know what is really causing this. And just saying 'Well, that's the way it is.' does not move us forward. If we wanted to live in a world of 'Well, that is just the way it is.' then we would not 3-rings, etc. Not trying to be negative towards you two but I would like to have a better understanding of why the 'mystery bulk' thing is still with us after all of these years. What is it: 'Inquiring minds want to know.' And I do appreciate your thoughts; something about reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Jerry

Hi Jeff, For the most part, I think that is a late barroom story. I never actually heard of this occuring. They were used on the reserve ripcord housing and only if you did not have an RSL, ala the one on the original X-BO. It was possible to pull the ripcord all of the way out but it did take some 'extra' effort when the pin hit the plug. They were needed more 'back in the day' because of all the downwind pea gravel landings. This is where the gravel would come from. This I do know about first-hand. However, unless you are using a military surplus type of ripcord housing (or they are making the gravel ban plug smaller) they will not fit the modern ripcord housing which are of a much smaller diameter than a mil surplus housing. Hope this helps, Jerry

Do I get a finder's fee? Jerry

For my own gear I would easily go 18 + months; I once went 2 1/2 yrs but it was a round canopy and it was mine. For most folks, I would vote for one year. And then maybe an outside inspection at six months; some people do not take care of their gear. Some others do not know how to take care of their gear. Jerry

Hi cissco, Since it is a RW PC it probably has the Crown Lines that went through a piece of tubular nylon. As I recall (and the old memory is not perfect), they were then all stitched together (lots of stitching) to hold them in place. Then the tubular was folded over forming an 'eye' that then had a small confluence wrap. I would think that a well-equipped rigger could make you a set. Just remember that the length needs to be such that they are slightly slack when the canopy is inflated. HTH, Jerry

Hi Sparky, I've spent a good part of my life in test labs and this problem is constant. That is what I am trying to get my hands around; how to eliminate the variables so that the real problems on why there is a variation can be determined. Otherwise, sizing a container to match a canopy is nothing more than a shot in the dark. Jerry

Thanks Terry

Hi nitrochute, A little trivia about the '66 US Team. Because the '64 World Meet was held in West Germany, the '66 World Meet was held in East Germany. The USA did not recognize East Germany as a seperate country. Therefore, the '66 US Team boycotted the World Meet that year and only jumped somewhere else in Europe; at the Adriatic Cup I think. Jerry

Hi Pop, I remember someone wrote a letter to Cameron/SKYDIVER wondering about packing a PC in a bag. He answered that if you live in Florida, you'll pack it in a bag. If you live anywhere else, you'll pack it in a sleeve. Ya gotta love it, Jerry

Hi Terry, I want to pick your brain a little. I accept that two sample canopies of the same brand, model & size can vary by 10%. Therefore, given that) I ask you, if the same sample canopy is measured a number of times (three or more times) with the 'official' tube-device, will the volume number come up the same? Or will they vary? If they vary, any idea on how much might they vary? Try to think seperately for mains and/or reserves. Or is the problem really only when more than one sample of the canopy is measured? I am just trying to get some handle on just what is causing this volumetric variation; particularly with reserves. I.e., is it a problem with a variation in the construction/mfg of the canopy or is it a problem with the measuring methods? There are no wrong answers to these questions. Thanks, Jerry

Hi yarpos, When discussing PC sleeves vs X-BO sleeves it is important (IMO) to remember just which type of sleeve(s) are being discussed. The original PC sleeve was much longer than a X-BO sleeve because the PC sleeve did not stow the crown lines, they were left fully extended inside the sleeve. All X-BO sleeves had the crown lines stowed just above the canopy. This results in a much shorter sleeve. Quite some time later, the 'short' PC sleeve came out. But by then most folks had just switched to a X-BO sleeve; and once again, Pioneer was way behind on their marketing. Pioneer (IMO) never really tried to understand the skydiving/skydiver market. Jerry

Hi Ripcord4, I would think that the X-BO would work OK with a PC sleeve. I put a X-BO sleeve on my PC and all was well. I do believe that the cotton was just for chafing. Jerry

Hi Pablito, First, please understand that this is not an attack on you or the SkyHook. While I have both positive & negative concerns about the SkyHook, I hope that they do not influence this question. Since the SkyHook pulls the reserve bridle at some point below the reserve pilot chute, is the placement of the SkyHook hook such that it is impossible for the reserve pilot chute to do as you stated regarding two pilot chutes? Just a request for information. Thanks, Jerry

Hi Kevin, Yup, that photo looks just like Mayfield's TradeWinds Beech mod. Jerry

Hi Chris, A little OT but curious, is CanPara still around? It was a jump magazine put out by CSPA. I was on the cover (with two other guys) back sometime in '71. Jerry

Hi slug, He name is Ted Mayfield. Jerry

No Siree Bobber, Mr. Sparky, That bird was a mod'd D-18; the only one like it I have ever heard of/seen. The last I knew of it, it was ferried to the LA-area to a new owner. You might just look for it now that you have time on your hands. Jerry

Hi Sparky, The dz at Sheridan, OR had a TradeWinds. It was a tri-gear with a single vertical fin & rubber. Jerry

Hi Bob, It may not work here either; IIRC, the Fair Trade Laws went out with the Ford Aministration. My memory is that Levi Strauss Company tried to make retailers hold to the 'retail' price but got nowhere. We'll see what happens, Jerry

Hi Sparky, As you well know, I do go back awhile; however, not THAT far back. Anyone here from Tucson that can go bug him? Jerry

Hi Terry, This 'military rig' thing goes back to '65 when I first became a rigger. I spent a fair amount of time reading virtually anything & everything I could get my hands on. Military rigs (actually, the whole of DoD) do not come under any control of the Dept. of Transportation (FAA being in that dep't.). It's that whole thing about national security, etc. We wouldn't want some GS-5 stopping the F-15's from rolling would we? So when they (military surplus gear) get put into the 'sport environment' they become somewhat of a 'vague' item, IMO. Many FAA documents refer to some military type designation, etc. as being OK to use/mix/match in sport/emergency parachutes. Again, this is where (IMO) things get vague. Just some thoughts of mine, Jerry

Hi Mark, Yes, you are; you're just not in it. I can tell from your write-ups that you are ON it. Keep the + attitude, it will take you far. Jerry

Hi caspar, First, do not stop pondering new things/ideas. As has been mentioned, this is how new things get developed. Second, IMO your system is simply too complicated when not necessary (not a complaint against you, just my thoughts). I'm a 'keep it simple' kind of guy; i.e., the Catapult. Again, keep that mind going. Jerry

Hi Terry, Not to argue, but how did you reach this conclusion/opinion? The whole concept of 'major alteration' of a military surplus rig is vague. Jerry