MrBrant

here's another post.

Wait a sec. a centimetre is a unit with a higher resolution than an inch. why would you use decimals on the more precise number, yet round up the inches like an animal? Answer me that! The impreial system is stupid. I'd love for it to completly dissappear (If i wasn't so hopelessly dependant on it.) Although all the units of measurement based on NOTHING piss me off. I mean really, just because some jerk scientist couldn't get his lab any cooler, why would he set "that" temperature as 0 degrees fahrenheit. At least the metric system is usually based on SOMETHING.

I would vote for container #5, and canopy #1. (always nice to have the centre cell a different color than the rest )

I, too, will have to say that I enjoy the Samura much more than the stiletto. I've only got about 3 jumps on the stiletto, and about 20 on the SAM, so these "findings" are in no way scientific, or might not even be reproducable, but these are my observations: openings: I find the Sam to have a much softer opening, and seems to be less "picky" about how you pack it. (I've really trash packed it a couple times, and it's been fine. The other thing I noticed is that the Samurai is much more sensitive to harness input (espeically with the brakes stowed). so, if you find yourself spinning on opening constantly (like I was at first), make sure you're sitting square in the harness. flight: Again, I would take the samurai over the stiletto. the sam SEEMS to turn just a bit faster. My forward speed seems to be a bit faster too. I didn't really compare descent rates, or the ability to get back from a long spot. landing: The Sam seems to have a bit more power in the flare. Although I'm still getting used to the flare stroke, I usually get a further swoop witht he Sam, than I was able to get with the Stiletto, doing similar approaches. (Like I said, only 3 jumps ont he stiletto, so hardly a comparion) Like others have said, the samurai has a much longer recovery arc. It's taking some gettting used to for me, since I came from a canopy with an uber-short recovery arc (the Pilot), but I'm liking it alot. Anyway, those are just a couple of my observations - take what you will from them, or leave them completly.....

Airtec or the rig manufacturer?

probably be thicker

Suicide Vaginas?

no no no Winnipeg. We've got........um........potholes?

3 AM then?

oh, I'll make sure they're plenty of alcohol for all! (well, maybe not all, but a good number anyway ) Hey, does the farm have places to sleep? (cheap bunkhouse, or even a crashable couch) Rental cars suck to sleep in! Skydive Atlanta peeps: you guys open Monday morning?

SOLD! (good thing you didn't say good beers ) You guys better have spiced rum down in that state of yours too!

Hey Everybody, I'm heading down to the Atlanta area at the end of the week. I'm hoping to get a few jumps in.

wagon wheel.

ok, thanks joe - i thought it might be something to do with that. I'm not questioning how things are done because I think i know better (FAR from it). I just wanted to know the reason behind it.

a spectrum analyzer would probably show the differences better

Have one more question, for those willing to answer: Why does the bridal extension (from the d-bag, down to the 2 lines from the slider) have to be so long? Why can't the 2 lines merge at the d-bag, say 3 feet from the slider (just a bit longer than the cigar rolled canopy) It seems like a good idea to have it above your deploying canopy, but is there any proven reason it has to be that long? I've got my line pretty long (about 5 feet), but there's a guy on my DZ who has it on his VX, with only about 2 feet of extension (just enough to let the canopy out of the bag). He seems not to be suffering any ill effects yet. So, that's got me wondering why the long line?

guess i didn't think that far ahead! Seriously though, snagging obstacles on landing is one thing I hadn't considered. Our landing area is very open, but there is couple windsocks, and we sometimes put blades out too. That could be a real concern. I guess it could happen with a conventional system too - but you'd have to be swooping in a helluva wing-over! I have been considering the entanglement-with-body issue over the past little while. However, I honestly can't think of how it could happen (doesn't mean it can't of course - shit happens on a skydive). I've done a few hard-as-possible spirals with it hooked up, but didn't get anywhere near getting wrapped up. One thing I just thought of was some really hard sachey's. I'll have to try some this weekend to see how close it comes. Have their been any documented cases of this that you know of? The system is always unhooked for crw dives (that was the main point of the system), so i'm not worried about it getting int he way there - just the opposite. But, it could get messy in the event of a canopy collision down low - that's a very good point as well. Considering this, I'll definitely never jump this at a larger dropzone. Brant

hey guys, thanks for the info so-far, it's very helpful. To (attempt to) address some concerns 1. Again, I'm not using the RDS to swoop faster, further, or on fire. That wasn't my goal for the system. I know it will make ZERO difference for me at my level on landing. I know to everybody else, swooping is the point of the RDS, but the main reason we're doing it is not. The main goal was to get rid of trailing pilot-chutes when doing some light crw. (Yes i know a good CRW team would bang out a 4 stack before we could finish reeling in our systems - but we're not at that level yet. if we were, we'd be jumping CRW canopies) The other goal (for me) was simply a mental exercise. I've learnt alot doing it, and that was the point. 2. Somebody mentioned I don't know what i'm doing - as evident with the single grommet int he centre. You're right - I started this project knowing only the bare basics (pc goes on slider). But thought discussion, and brainstorming between a few of us at the DZ, we all learnt alot. The research, and this thread has also added to the knowledge. so yes, I started out not knowing what i was doing, but I'd like to think i've learnt something doing it. (And I'd be willing the bet a SHIT-LOAD of money that I havn't been the only one to try this with a single centre attachment point) 3. Pull altitudes. No, i'm not throwing at 1800 feet - I apologize if I miscommunicated. I jump at a 182 dropzone, where our ceiling is 9000 feet. SOP is breakoff at 3500, pull at 2300. This is what is taught right from the get-go for the A-license. Before the RDS i was under canopy of 1900, after it's been 1800. I didn't take it on a freefall jump until I had about 20 jumps on the system. Was this wise? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the terminal openings are actually quite nice - not squirrely at all. Like I said, i just leave the system attached after opening on those jumps. I think that's about all of them. I know that you are all just looking out for me, and I do thank you for that. I hope I'm not coming across as pig-headed. Anyway, back on topic. I'm still looking for a few things if people are willing to share? - Anybody willing to share a removable slider diagram so I can compare my ideas? - Does anybody see any issues with landing with the RDS system still hooked up? (remember, the point of the system is NOT for swooping) Thanks in advance!

Thanks! I'll have to lengthen mine when i do the 2 attachment point things. I'm guessing I should probably go on the high side of that - since my 188 is a bit bigger than the normal sub-100 canopies with the RDS's. Eh, half the fun is re-inventing the wheel! I could have bought a digital altimeter instead of making one too - but there's no fun in that. (that being said, i have no interest in re-inventing the H/C system, or reserve - some things just shouldn't be fucked with! lol)

Hi Joe, thanks for the reply! I completely agree with you regarding the removal in traffic. I only bother to reel it in on h&P's' (for practice), and on CRW jumps - where we discuss positions, headings, and all know where each other are while we reel in. (C-182 dropzone, only 3 other jumpers to keep track of at all times. - yes I know that issues can still arise) I do honestly appreciate the concern though

I can personally vouch for that also. Nothing but good vibes and high quality work from MEL and Joe has been really cool about taking the time to explain things to me... agh, that takes half the fun away!!

Yup, i just re-inforced the side without binding tape, and got my friendly neighborhood rigger to bang in a gromet. Most times when I pack up my main, I don't know what my next jump is goin to be. (RW, H&P, light CRW, etc.) On the freefall RW jumps, after opening I don't bother with reeling in the system. I'm not anywhere close to the level where it would make a difference on landing (I'm still just working on accuracy with 90''s, so it doesn't have many apprecialbe benifets in that regard anyway) I just don't want to unpack my main to hook up the RDS every time i do a CRW jump, just because I packed it with the pc attached on top for a FF jump. Do you see any issues with landing the system, besides not reaping the benefits. Thanks for the help Chuck, I really do appreciate it.

Hey guys, Just wondering if I could draw on the RDS experience pool. Disclaimer: I did not do the RDS to swoop faster or further - at my level, that would no nothing for me anyway. Anyway, background: A few of us at the dropzone were cooking up ways to get rid of trailing P/C's under canopy. (ideas ranged from RDS to triathlon-like retractable bridles, to pc that get sucked into flaps in the canopy, and even ones attached to the slider, with the bridal running through a grommets in the canopy, to pull the pc flush with the top skin) These made for some good debates if nothing else. RDS won out as being the simplest and easiest to implement. Attached is the system I cooked up while trying to sleep one night. Right now, its just a removable bag & PC. I have plans to do the slider too, but I'll get to that later. I just read earlier this week that there are people who use pretty much this same system (see diagram - probably with a few differences though). It seems to work pretty good. Takes about 100 feet longer to open at terminal than the deployment system. Although the sub terminal openings are a bit wonky. Anything less than 4-5 seconds off the 182 usually gives me line twists, sometime spinning. My theories are: 1. Gromet not punched directly in centre of slider. It looks good, but maybe I was of by 1/8 inch 2. Perhaps I need a longer bridal extension between the bag and slider. 2 other people on the DZ are now using this system, but with much smaller canopies - so the length ratio is alot bigger. Perhaps I need to get my bag further above the main canopy, and out of its turbulence on opening. 3. using 2 attachment points at either side of the slider would help. Anybody care to share their sub-terminal RDS experience? The next thing I want to do, is the removable slider. I think I have in my head exactly what I want to do, but wouldn't mind seeing other people's set up - or diagrams of actual systems in-use. The reasons for the removable slider is for visibility and noise reasons, and that I want to get rid of that stupid RSL shackle. I recently (couple weeks ago) read that they had a history of releasing prematurely. Being arrogant, I decided to leave my system as it was (since it was working just fine - the other people MUST have been doing something wrong). Until last Friday, when mine released prematurely (on a 9k hop&pop in high winds) and I lost the P/C and d-bag. d'oh. I have also recently heard that the RSL does do damage to the tail of the canopy. (I had thought of that during the design, but decided to go ahead and just keep an eye on it.) Now that I know that it probably will do damage, I want it gone (replace with a slink). 1 more question. Anybody have any negative experiences with flying and landing with the RDS still hooked up to the slider? I usually don't bother to reel it in on my RW jumps (since i'm not open until 1800 feet). I've landed it a few times after flying it up high and haven't found any problems. So, to summarize: 1. Anybody have similar experience with sub-terminal RDS deployments resulting in line twists? 2. Anybody see anything blatantly wrong with the system I'm using (in diagram)? 3. Anybody willing to share their removable slider diagrams so i can compare them to my ideas? 4. Problems with landing the hooked up system? Thanks for your input!

Personal experience only: With my pilot (another slower opening canopy), I find that if I don't do the full PRO pack (flaking the cells inside the packjob), it opens waaaay too slow, and I get collaped end cells. With flaking the end cells, I get nice, consistant 500 foot openings and no collapsed end cells.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (is my guess)