Beatnik

Right now I have four PCs amongst the 48 or so rigs I own. One is a Canadian national team canopy and it is minty. I was told it has 80 jumps on it but I am not even sure it has that. The lines are white and the material is crisp. I have never seen a PC in this day that compares. I never had a really bad landing under a PC but my Para-Sled, that is another story. The first landing I had under it I was told from the spectators on the ground that they could hear the five points of contact in the PLF.

Why would you want to slap on a chest mount? I use them a lot but that is because many of the rigs I jump that is where the reserve goes or for test jumping occasionally when I feel I want a second backup. Most of the time it typically isn't being used as a third parachute. If you are thinking of having a chest mount as a second reserve. I would advise against it. You wouldn't be creating a safer environment for yourself but most likely doing the exact opposite. Adding the addition of another parachute is going to make the system more complex and increase the chances of mistakes. Some crw jumpers used to have a tertiary or chest mount reserve as a back up but that seems to be a forgotten practice and you don't see it as much anymore. Also some intentional cutaway rigs have them. The only reason that I can really see having a third parachute or chest mount, other than the possible two listed above, in that configuration is for test jumping. Then it is usually worth having an extra but test jumping isn't a typical skydive and shouldn't be confused or compared as such IMHO.

So far the oldest that I have jumped was from 1953. I have quite a few canopies from the 60's that are good to go and have never had a problem with any of them. There is nothing quite like being under a vintage canopy.

The oldest canopy that I heard of being jumped was from a guy in Arizona who has a Russell Lobe. That parachute has to be over 80. Not sure if it is still being jumped or how often. I doubt it is too regularly because of the rarity of it.

No need, I have done lots of them myself since the method was introduced and have lots of line. To me it is a method of fastening the finger trap from coming undone with the line. To me that falls in the definition of a knot. But what we define it as has really nothing to do with the argument. As for testing it is something that can be done at a university and I happen to know someone who works in an engineering department of one to get it done so there really isn't any cost. But I have other things for destructive tests than this and am well aware of how to do research. Mathematically I can prove with using statics that there will be a reduction in strength compared to a standard fingertrap because of how forces are transferred down the line with bringing it through itself. If I am buying a specific line for its strength, I see no point in reducing it at a specific point. This is why you taper the line in a fingertrap opposed to a straight cut. With a straight cut the angle of the fibres in the line are redirected sharply on the outer sheath of the fingertrap and causes a load in a direction that will cause a failure. I am not saying that this method can't be used successfully in applications for instance your softlink method where the force on it is drastically reduced with the wraps done of the link. I am not going to get into a forces lecture here more than I already have. I just wanted to bring another aspect to this conversation that hasn't been brought and maybe a reason why this method might not be used.

I have no doubt it works and on steering lines you don't have the same forces applied to them as you do with main suspension lines. So I would still like to see what the reduction in strength is using this method. The method is a type of knot. It might be a little different compared to other knots but it is essentially a knot and will have similar drawbacks. It might not interfere with sliders the way other knots do but looping the line back on itself and changing the direction of the fibres has to reduce the lines strength. I seem to recall from a few years ago that JS stopped using them on some of their canopies for some reason that I can't recall at the moment and went back to sewn fingertraps. So I think there is more to it than the colour of the thread.

I have seen the stitchless fingertrap method used on a lineset of a Firebolt. Sure it can be done. Something that hasn't been mentioned is that knots reduce the strength of the line. In the Poynter Manuals it has the reduction on a chart but this knot wasn't around then. It would be interesting to see what the reduction would be.

The PZ81 is a real nice parawing, probably the nicest single keel out there. But I still like the double keel as much if not better. It is a lot of fun and the landings are really soft. I have actually had jumps with the double keel where I was stuck in a thermal and going up. That jump took forever. It was from 7000 and finished 25 minutes later. As for the specs, I can get them to you but it will have to wait a week or so. Right now I am up at the north pole with work and will be returning next week. Send me a PM.

The other option that is available would be to make one or have one made. It would probably cost more to get one this way but it wouldn't be hard. The single keel and double keel share the same basic components only one has two sections and the other has three. Because of the design of them they are extremely simple to build compared to other designs.

I have a good number of single keel jumps and a growing number of double keel jumps and haven't had a malfunction or anything close on either of them. The stall on the single keel is pretty scary but it is self induced. To the OP, neither of my dactyls are for sale.

If you want to take my post out of context go ahead. There are some canopies that have a long control stroke and that is where having a long reach is a bonus. I explained my point and it seems like you have a hard time with it because someone has done it. I can also stand up a lot round landings. Are you going to say that isn't possible because most people fall down during them?

A rear riser flare is not the same thing as a rear control surface flare. When the control lines are gone you flatten out the angle of incidence temporarily which effectively slows the descent rate and the forward speed. That is where being tall comes in, mainly with range of control. The control stroke depends on the canopy and there are ones that are more than a foot. It makes it similar to round chute in that respect. Regarding lift, there is much more to it than just the tail end of the canopy. I am not going to get into all the aerodynamics of airfoils. The tail end is the most efficient but you can gain it from other areas it just isn't as great. As for the tail fluttering in the breeze it really depends on the weight distribution on the canopy. Some will do it more than others. Flaring with the rear risers doesn't really flare with a smaller portion of the canopy because it is changing a lot of aspects and generating lift more than just using air deflecting which is what happens with the control lines. It might not generate the same amount but it does generate lift. I do a lot of test jumping and a lot of the jumps have been less than ideal. That is how I came to land canopies without the steering lines. I have done it on a 135 and a 180. The end of it I got up and walked away without a scratch. As to the amount of times like I said before I do test jumping. I have jumped close to 70 different canopies in various shapes and/or sizes and even somethings that people have told me you can't skydive with. I am more of a parachutist than a skydiver anymore and generally log my canopy time. That is how I gained this experience and I also build canopies now. Frankly I am sick of arguing on this point and won't after this. I guess that fact that I have done it more than once and walked away must mean it can't be done because you say so.

I understood it the first time of what you said. But I still don't agree with it completely nor have I found it accurate with my experiences. Lift is created many ways and air deflection into a different air stream is just one way it is done. Using the tail is probably the most effective, since it can deflect air the cleanest and most direct. But pulling the rear risers down is still going to use Bernoulli's principle and also use wing circulation theory. If you can bleed off the forward speed and cause the deflection (e.g. using rear risers) regardless of if the tail has pressure or not you will be able to land. The parachute acts similar to a round canopy and the landing is not much different. Unless someone can tell me that you can land a round and prove it, I am not going to agree with the statement. I got what you said the first time and I can appreciate the explanation of the configuration that I was familiar with long before the post but I don't agree with its accuracy.

I have landed with no steering lines connected. Yes it does make a difference but you can still do it and you can do it safely if you know what you are doing. Being tall I have an advantage of pulling more down. Like I said I have done it in different situations and I have never had a problem.

I don't know how accurate the rear riser landing statements you made are. I have about 100 rear riser landings on various canopies (135 - 288) in different situations and I have always walked backed no problem. It is a different type of flare and you need to know what you are doing to have it go off properly. To the OP, a repack is going to cost less than replacing a cut brake line plus it is better to cutaway for safety. There is a possibility that the line can tangle with other lines. It is not likely but it could happen. At that point it could be too low to cutaway. I never did understand why some people are scared to use their reserves. That is what it is there for in case shit happens. Your theory of cutting the brake line above the toggle can be easier said than done in reality.

Going off the top of my head here is what I have. Crossbow H/C Omega H/C GS Trac II H/C Sport Montreal H/C Para-Twin H/C B4 H/C Top Secret H/C Irvin H/C Stevens H/C Custom Montreal H/C SST H/C Pop-Top Racer SST Vector II Wonderhog MC4 complete rig Para-Plane Strato-Stars Paracommanders UT-15 Thunderbow Delta IIs (US and Canadian models) PZ-81 Paradactyl Double Keel l Dactyl Strato-Clouds T10s C9s Skytrainer Para-Sled Para-Foil w/ spider slider (5 and 7 cell versions) Cobra Lancer Papillon (French and US) A few prototype canopies This is about half of it. I will have to dig through it all to find out all what I have.

There was some research presented at a PIA a few years ago. The presentation files are in the thread below and it has some really good information. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3131726;search_string=color%20pia;#3131726

Fair enough. I may have misinterpreted your post and I apologize for that. I know many know me for a lot of my vintage gear jumps but I have done a lot of modern test jumps as well. Unfortunately I can't talk about those as freely as I would like. One of the things you have to be aware of with riggers and their opinions is that there are many that really don't know a lot more than packing reserves. Some get it in there head that because they have a rigger rating that they know everything about parachutes. I won't give any other advise that want you mentioned last about taking the recommendation of that manufacturer. But I would say to fully inspect the canopy before making a jump on it. I have had to send brand new equipment back because things were missed in the quality control checks. May personal opinion is to fully inspect and then do a high hop 'n' pop. Then that gives you plenty of opportunity to check out the canopy. Thats what I do when I get hired by a company to test something and so far no one has complained or suggested that I take anything to terminal on the first jump.

You should be a test jumper with that kind of thinking. Having less variables in a equation is always a better option IMHO. The opening/inflation of a parachute is a very violent process in reality. The forces will be higher there than any other time. After that the stress on the parachute components is pretty low and very unlikely that something would happen. Sure it is possible but very unlikely. The materials used in the construction can be pretty resilient and usually can survive many low stress openings and flights prior to breaking/failing, whereas the same cannot be said for high stress situations. This is just my experience talking and the few hundred test jumps I have done.

Well see. I haven't thought of it or was planning to do that. I am planning on doing this at least one more time and then we will see where it goes from there. Each time so much is learned it is amazing. It is almost like you know nothing each time you do it. Next time I am going to work on a few other things. It is all about learning the science of it. There is still much to learn but next time it should be a good time. I figure the most jumps you can do with a couple of 182s in one day is over 400. After that faster planes are needed almost many other things.

Congratulations to all involved in this record. They do require a lot of planning. I have done a solo event twice, once at a 150 and the second at 202. Both took a lot of effort to organize. Do you know what the current record is for the most jumps out of a 182 in 12 hours? I have done over 150 in 12 hours. That is fuelling my curiosity. Good job again to all involved in this record.

The guy in the first photo is awesome But anyone wearing a bright yellow balloon suit would have to be anyways right?

That still doesn't say anything about the other deployment methods I mentioned. I am sorry, there is no way you can say one is out of sequence and then say it better for your reserve. Either method container opening then drag on a pilot chute or drag on a pilot chute then container opening both seem to be in sequence. Considering that the Vector was designed long before the CYPRES came out, there is probably many other reasons he went the way he did. I doubt a device that wasn't invented at that time had any influence in the design. Reading what he says, he goes and contradicts himself. It seems to me he prefers something and is trying to convince this is the way to go.

Your reserve container opens before the pilot chute is developing drag as well. I guess it is out of sequence and all the reserve systems out there are a bad thing. Plus any main ripcord operated system and any static line system with a pilot chute assist. I disagree that is a out of sequence definition since so many system use that sequence and a lot longer than the throw out has been around. This "sequence" definition shouldn't apply to anything.

You are right it. The kill line can snag the parachute if cocked after the canopy is in the bag. It is usually not very likely but it can happen. I have seen and repaired damage from this exact thing.