RiggerLee

Flexon TSO'd with zigzag? News to me. I tend to think that it could be done if it was designed properly so that ALL loads were in shear but with most typical harness designs at least some of the loads like those on the reserve risers tend to peal the upper junction. Climbing harnesses are mostly done with zigzag but they are also prone to abrasion of that stitching and are semi disposable with limited life spans. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It isn't relevant to skydiving. We use helium to pop off the nose cone. It tends to soak into the pack job and then tries to expand when the nose cone separates. The rapid drop in pressure can put a lot of stress on the container, loops, and bag. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I think it's the humidity not the altitude. And the difference can be huge. Good reason to have a humidifier in your loft. And worst case solution... bust out the old spray bottle. Cue the boos and hisses from the audience. They have clearly never tried to pack some super tight Florida rig at Eloy. Cool but unrelated side note on altitude change on pack jobs. I've seen pack jobs bust open the seams on containers with rapid pressure changes when the air, or in this case helium, could not escape the canopy fabric fast enough. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Give it a try. It's the section between the B and C that you'll have to sew all the tape onto to carry the load of the bridle. The front cross port is the only other question. The center cell will be wide open catching a lot of high speed air. You'll just have to see how much load you get on that fabric. Worst case you'll get a tear starting at the cross port. It's time to build it, jump it, and see. Have you found a sewing machine yet? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

In theory stall speed should change with the square root of the weight and one over the square root of the density. You kind of have to look at an atmospheric model to talk about how density changes with altitude. A lot of it depends on what happens with the temperature and how it changes over altitude. The basic model assumes that the temp changes in certain ways as you go up through different regions. For instance I really need to find some better high altitude data for my model. The reality is a little different. Talk to some base jumpers. You'll find that weight and wing loading actually do figure into break setting. With the larger canopies and deeper settings on opening we actually do get into the range where this becomes an issue. For instance a heavier guy can get away with a deeper setting on the same canopy then a smaller guy. If you're really interested go to basejumper.com and look for stuff written by Tom Aielo. He has his own bridge and he's had the opportunity to work with people setting up their own gear in his courses. He has compiled more data then any one I know. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Six or seven years... Keeping in mind rates of gear replacement an the level of saturation before the probability of it showing up... So what sort of design changes did we start to go through 10 to 12 years ago? Interesting. I'm trying to think of some of the tweaks that were made to gear and pattern sets. It seems like that was kind of the time period when people were making an effort to clean up the esthetics of their rigs. Small pattern set changes. Remember when Javelin did away with the hinge space at the top of the top reserve flap? I'm just using that as an example. And some other changes to the reserve tray. Other manufactures did similar things. collectively some of these things could add up to slow or delay the reserve launch. Just saying that when you talk about cypress fires there can be a lot of variables beyond the canopy. And we're talking about a period of evolution in the container designs that might match up with this increase in cypress fatalities. And before that we had a much high number of cypress fires. We packed 11 cypress fires in one week at Quincy and that was just the rigging trailer. I'll bet there were a good number done in the field. So yes there is with out a doubt a problem there but I'm not sure it's a reserve problem. Or not solely a reserve problem. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It does bug me that no one tries or is willing to share real information about their equipment. I don't believe any one knowingly puts out a bad product. If it was me I think I'd be prouder then a peacock. But I guess it's easier to sell the shiny and the hype. You clearly have a problem with the slower openings of the optimum. But lets rewind to your description of the Raven-M that blew up. You say it was over speed and over weight? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Reality check. Head down is the fastest growing facet of our sport. On some dropzones it's become the dominant discipline there will be more people free flying on a load the belly flyers. What is "over speed" Are you saying that there is no expectation of a reserve surviving on a head down dive? A high percentage of jumpers spend the majority of there free fall time at "super terminal" speed. This is the world we live in. And what speed was it tested to in it's heavy high speed drops? Are you saying he exceeded that speed? Why did it blow up? Over weight? Again you'll have to define that. Are you saying that he was over the recommended weight stated on the reserve? If so that just means that it should not have landed well. Or are you saying that it was over the 254 lb. or what ever the TSO maximum weight was for the reserve? Because it should not suffer ANY damage below that weight and it should have been tested to XXX% above that weight with no sign of damage in testing. So what are our expectations for a reserve. Not blowing up is high on my list. And the envelope we are flying in has expanded. Designs which were once perfectly fine are not suitable for what we are doing today. I'll still jump them but I mostly do CRW when I jump at all which is less and less now a days. If you're going to Freefly you need a reserve that can handle super terminal openings, ie a slower opening reserve. You seem to think that it should still open like a fire cracker from a low speed cutaway. I fully believe that we can do ether one of these but I'm afraid that we will never be able to do both. You're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too on this one. Now I think the choices are rather simple. We can ether stop flying head down or say that it's ok for a reserve to blow up on opening. Second choice, build canopies that can survive through out the entire envelope of our flight but that means that we will have to show them more respect at the bottom end. But we can do that. That is within our power to control. We can change the BSR's. We can now raise AAD altitudes. We can respect the performance envelope of the gear. It's the same choice really it's just a question of which end of the spectrum you want to bow to. You know if you are really worried about slow reserve openings we have it in our power to make canopies open as fast as we want. Hell, I'll show you how to pack slider down. But you wont be able to survive it at terminal. Even then I'd still give you a 300 ft. hard deck to cut away with out a MARD. There is still a lower limit. You just have to respect the envelope of your gear. And how did your TSO compatibility meeting go? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It's not really fair to compare canopies based on wing loading. The 220 is a perfect example. Even at the same "true", think measuring differences, wing loading it can not be used as a bench mark for a 113. It's very nearly twice the surface area. The math says it should scale but it doesn't. Large canopies far out perform small ones at the same wing loading. I don't have a good explanation for this but it's true. So that testimony can be a little miss leading. Also break setting vary. And glide angle/decent rate vary from design to design. I hate to confuse the issue. But the best and simplest advise that any one can give you is don't skimp on the size of your reserve. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

If you really want an M series Raven you can pick one up pretty cheep. they were referred to as Raven-Murder. A lot of people wont jump and a lot of riggers wont pack the early ones with the type three tape. All basically because they opened too fast. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Is this a problem with the equipment? Or is it a problem with the people? I mean there is no question that people are dead. It's been discussed from a number of angles. I think there were a number of different factors in some of these accidents. I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for all of them at the feet of slower opening canopies. You have to look at a system as a whole. It's a valid point that a slower opening reserves would surly add yet another link to the chain that could kill some one. but does that mean that they are a bad idea. Help me out. How many damaged reserves have we seen? Some body help me count. How many super Ravens broke lines? I don't recall the exact number. How many M series lost line attachments? Didn't we break lines on a couple of Tempos? I don't recall any of the above dying but some of them got really fucked up. I say that there is valid reason for building higher speed/slower opening reserves. You could validly say that we are setting our selves up for a compatibility issue but it seems that people are taking steps to deal with it. Changes to the BSR's to allow the AAD manufacturers to set higher altitudes. I can't believe the bitching over that. I'm not saying that there are not problems to be addressed but I'm don't think that slowing the reserves down is a mistake. For all the issues with the gear I still think the easiest link in the accident chain to break is the human one. It may be necessary for the people to adapt to the realities of the changing jumping environment. If it's a question of education then it's our fault and it falls up on us to change it. I think it would be better if people were to stand up and discus these issues openly. But they seem to worried about loosening their market share. They seem to think that people are just too stupid to grasp all this. So they run around in the dark making these changes, not necessarily bad changes, but changes and hoping no one will notice. In the end all of these things are going to happen any way because they need to happen. We need slower reserves if we are going to fly head down. We need higher opening AAD's. The truth is opening altitudes on mains have already changed but our expectation on reserve performance may need to alter. The only question is how many people will die in the process and that's really just a question of what kind of learning curve we follow. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Well you could get an M series reserve that is prone to opening so fast that it will smack you stupid. They had to have the attachment points upgraded to prevent the lines from ripping off the bottom of the canopy. And that's at ordinary terminal velocity. Good help you if you're head down. It's not like people haven't been killed by hard openings. So no, canopies are not all the same. I'm just pointing out that no design that takes any characteristic to an extreme is a good design. Yes, some of the newer canopies open slower but that's neither a good nor a bad thing. It's just a choice. There are good arguments for slower opening reserves. They have the potential to survive higher opening speeds and we are flying faster and jumping smaller canopies. All designs have an envelope. Operating them safely means respecting their operating limits, not ignoring the reality of what we are demanding of them. We could jump much faster opening reserves if we were all willing to wear 80's balloon suits and all fall flat on our bellies and maybe lose a little weight. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Even just 1/8 or 1/4 inch hard board works fine. Move all the furniture out of the way and lay it out on the floor. It's hard on your back but that's what I do now that I don't have room for a proper cutting table. But make your self a little rack for your roll of fabric. Just two t shaped end peaces made from 2*6 with a notch to hold a peace of conduit for the roll to turn on. It's worth it. And even when I had a full size cutting table I often climbed all over it as I cut so I might as well have been on the floor any ways. Here's a thought. If you could get your patterns into a real drafting program you could ask some one to cut it for you. It would also bypass the issue of finding good fabric. Call Red at flight concepts. He might do it for you. Wouldn't it be nice to just get a box in the mail with all your peace's laser cut for you? Lee Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Actually I think the lack of cross ports in the center rib is probable more of a structural issue. There is a lot of airflow captured by the center cell of the nose on opening. I can see it stressing the rib and stating a tear there and then between the b and c you probable have the bridle attachment with all the tapes transferring the load down the rib to the bottom seam and out to the loaded ribs. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And if you want to put a nose lip on there I think you could come down 25% of the nose cut with no problem. It would probable help capture the airflow escaping the top of the nose at high angles of attack like on flare. The real question you should be looking at is how you want to sew things. For example how are you going to sew the lip at the leading edge of the rib? Have you done a test yet. It might be a bit awkward on the non load bearing ribs. Don't buy your self problems you don't have to have. It's time to focus on construction. A rounder edge, basically curving the top skin down rather then a sharp turn might be easier to sew then a sharp turn. Just a thought. Have you talked to the sewing machine shop yet? You're at a point where construction may start to dictate design. And there's nothing wrong with that. One is not more important then the other. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

What are they for really? I think I can tell you the general philosophy but the truth is that perfectly good canopies have been built both with and with out them. And although most people have felt that they are a good idea they have at times caused problems. So it goes like this. The classic thought is that you need them to help equalize the pressure between cells. It helps to fill the cells on opening inflating the whole canopy smoother helping to avoid things like end cell closure and off heading openings. Let's say on a good opening that the center cell opens first and starts to surge forwards and basically runs over the end cells leaving them behind un inflated. The front of the end cell is basically tucked under and not catching air. This is not uncommon. In theory the cross flow during opening would help to avoid this and would help to pop open the end cells after opening. It can be harder to get into deep enough breaks to get it to pop out and open with out them. That was the conventional thinking. The truth is that there have been canopies built with out cross ports. For instance, Charter wound up buying this odd nine cell zp canopy in his first rig. It was an odd thing, I think it came out of south Africa. Damn, I'm brain locking, can't remember the name. It was the only one I'd ever seen. He got it cheep because no one had ever heard of it and Dallas is kind of snobbish about it's PD and Icarus canopies. It was kind of saber/stilettoish. It turned out to be a really nice canopy for him. He jumped the shit out of it. No cross ports. I seem to recall that the Strong Set 400's did not have cross ports. Maybe some one can confirm that? My memory is going. There are probable others but those are two that come to mind. It seems to be some thing that was tried when people were switching from F-111 to zp. It might have been an attempt to control the openings by slowing the inflation of the canopies by reducing the filling through the cross ports. I don't know that's just a guess. But the canopies seem to open and fly fine with out them. Or at least well enough. For example the I've seen the set roll tips under and it's not really prone to popping out on it's own with out help. Problems. I told you about what was believed to be a cross flow issue on the early FX canopies. The angle of attack and pressure is not the same across the nose of the canopy especially in a turn. So there can be cross flow through the canopy. The flow on one side is no longer stagnant. You can create a dimple and start to cave in one side of the nose on a large lip or baffle that closes off the majority of the nose. Or At least that was the thinking when he was having problems at the time. So in a since the cross ports were actually making the canopy less stable. I always wondered if you could put a flapper valve over the cross ports on a couple of the ribs and get the best of both worlds. Say if you separated the canopy into groups of three cells with air lock valves so that the air could only flow outwards. Personally I like cross ports. I've even enlarged them on some of my canopies for base. I think they would be a good thing in your design. You're a long way from a design where you might see any kind of problem. The vast majority of canopies have at least two cross ports of some type. For example some use mutable narrow vertical slits to better support the rib. Personally I think they were just having fun with their laser cutter. Look what we can do! Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer on any of it but here are some thoughts. Let's say you have an I beam constructed canopy. By that I mean that every other rib is a load bearing rib. The individual half cells want to inflate and bow out wards. That's mostly a ratio of the rib thickness at that point relative to the half cell width that's why the distortion is worse towards the back. This ballooning just is with standard construction. The only thing that might change it would be a significant change in the tip vortices. With every other rib loaded there is another kind of distortion as the unloaded rib drifts upwards. This is a product of the amount of the lift generated by the canopy vs. the inflating pressure of the canopy. Note the difference. The first is based on ratios in the fundamental geometry of the wing. The second relates to the forces and dynamic pressure. The amount of distortion will depend on the full cell width and the tension out wards at that point and the amount of lift being supported at that point on the wing. It's like a suspension bridge with the lift across the cell being supported by the top skin balanced by the outwards pressure of the cell pulling the skin tight. So discounting the ballooning of the half cell it wants to be a parabola just like a bridge. Because the lift is dependent on the position along the cord you see more of this at the front of the canopy. How bad it is depends on the balance between the lift and the dynamic pressure, basically on the AoA. This distortion can significantly reduce the span of the canopy. Yes, that does reduce the anhedral angle but that does not even come close to making up for the loss of surface area and reduction in AR. Distortion=bad. It's most prominent at high angles of attack and low air speed. Like on flare as you run out of air speed and are at a high angle of attack. Notice how much the canopy can shrink across the front at that point in your landing when you need it the most. You can also see high G induced wing loadings at high air speeds like when pulling out of a dive. If you are digging hard on the breaks even if you are screaming fast trying to pull out of the corner you can be at a high angle of attack. One of the reasons cross braced canopies perform well in both the situations described above is that they are less dependent on the inflation of the canopy to support the wing. The "parabola" is built into the cross bracing rather then distorting the top skin to support that load. So virtually no distortion at high angles of attack. You don't lose span width or surface area at high angles of attack. So although these designs are associated with super fast canopies what they really are is better low speed wings. Oddly enough it's there low speed performance that allows people to land them at such high wing loadings. Scaling. It's kind of a mystery to me. Some of it I can explain some of it I can't. Some things are very obvious even in the range of size that you see in skydiving canopies. But it can become even more apparent as you go bigger. The largest canopies I've played with are 1200 sq. ft. not the biggest ever built but still three times larger then a typical tandem canopy and at that point the effects of scaling become very obvious. One thing that is noticeable even in normal sized canopies is the changes in the dynamic response of a canopy. Even between a 135 and a 120 of the same canopy at the same wing loading. The difference in the length of the line set, even though it's in proportion can noticeable affect the pitch and turn response of the canopy. And just wait till you hit 107 in it. So even though she's a 100 lb. girl that 120 might not be such a good idea. But what I find most interesting is that as you get bigger how much better the canopy it self flies. I'm referring to the aerodynamics. Same design, same AR, same wing loading and yet they seem to fly so much better. Or should I say that small canopies fly like shit? And the smaller you go the shittier they perform. But lets look at this positively. The bigger you go the better it gets and it doesn't seem to stop. Those 1200 are the best performing canopies I've ever seen. And it's not like it's a supper advanced design. You would think it would be real draggy, 112 suspension lines, non cascaded. And F-111. Even loaded over 1:1 you don't need ZP, and they can load those things at 2:1 and the fly fine. See how long an F-111 120 last at 2:1. I have never come up with a good explanation for this but it's the truth. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

There is probable some truth to that. We're very lucky to be able to get cad plating done at all. I once heard that the military requirements for it were the only thing standing in the way of it being out lawed in this country. But again even if we were to try to drop cad plating I don't think we would have the capacity to meet the demand in stainless. It's good to live here in the US where military expediency still trumps radical left wing eco obsessed fascist bent on the destruction of the economy. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

This is my understanding. Stainless requires a different furnace. You need an electric furnace rather then a coal fired one to do it right. One of the reasons stainless showed up in European rigs so much earlier is that all of the foundries got bombed in WW II and were rebuilt with modern technology. Here in the US following WW II the unions refused to allow the investment in modernization of the equipment which resulted in most of the work eventually being moved over seas. There are now very few foundries in the US and very few truly modern electric versions that can produce good stainless. This is how the story was told to me. Take it for what it is worth. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Including a few caveats such as the AoA staying the same and no change in area, then both lift and drag change with the square of the air speed. So, yes, they stay in proportion. If you put a weight belt on a jumper that does not increase his drag then the canopy will fly faster but at the same glide angle. On the other hand down sizing to a smaller canopy will not necessarily do the same thing. Not every thing scales. The lines don't generally get thinner. The risers don't get smaller. The body doesn't get that much smaller. And oddly enough the canopy it self doesn't seem to work as well. I'd have to think about it a bit to try to generate a reason but big canopies are noticeably more efficient at the same wing loadings. On the other hand you will see some strange things written because most people don't look at it from such a strictly technical point of view. The experience in the real world is different. Let's say there is a wind, 10 mph, not exactly strong but a good percentage of the forward speed of the canopy. facing into the wind a more highly loaded canopy will be able to cover noticeably more distance over the ground. Is this glide angle? Most people would call it that. On the other hand a canopy with a low wing loading will have a lower sink rate and facing down wind, as when coming back from a long spot, will be carried much farther by the wind then a heavier loaded canopy. It's even more noticeable if you hang in breaks or a bit of rear riser to further decrease the sink rate. Again this is not glide angle but it is distance over the ground. I'm afraid with some of these things you have to kind of read between the lines. Some of the things that have been written come from well meaning people with a great deal of experience but limited technical back ground. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It looks about two sizes larger to me. Count up the rings. I think the smallest is a two. wasn't it a Canadian company? What is the back story on that. I know borden has taken over the forging here in the us. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

there's a link here about half way down. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4575326;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I do prefer the G3. You just said small frame? I do like the infinity rigs. I think they have some really nice pattern sets. But be advised, most of their rigs tend towards longer reserve trays and wider thinner rigs. If you are small framed and a young jumper then they might not be the best fit for you. The bulk has to go some where. Mirage tends towards thicker rigs and might fit a small frame better then an infinity for the same size canopies. Deffinantly check the actual dementions of the container length, width, thickness before buying. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I have very mixed feelings over this. I've seen self government work and I've seen it fail. The base industry has actually done fairly well but I think that's because it's a very direct descendent of the FAA controlled rigging and skydiving industry. I don't think it could have started on it's own or even continue to exist if it could not piggy back off of the certified parachute industry. Let's take another example which nearly failed. Ultra lights. Do any of you remember how fucking scary the early ultra lights were. Even today I've seen some really fucked up, scary, what the hell were they thinking? mistakes. Bad, bad designs. Bad construction. Bad maintenance. All from the lack of proper testing and over sight. About once a year they would all come out of the wood work and we would pack their reserves and inspect their gear. You wouldn't believe the shit I've seen. I don't buy the idea that it's the market that drives improvement in our gear. The market drives it's evolution but it does not push it to wards true improvement or safety. We've seen the results of market driven design over the last few years. There have to be standards of performance based on function, reliability, and safety. If any thing I think I would like to see more stringent testing requirements and standards because clearly we have at times fallen short. I'm not sure I would want to see what would happen if the riggers tickets were dissolved or repacks no longer required. I don't think most skydivers are qualified to pack their mains much less their reserves. And I've seen what happens in countries where they do try. The FAA is with out a doubt a mixed blessing but as much of a pain in the ass as they are I think that we are better off for having had them in our sport. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Ever here the joke about how Gene Bland showed up on Christmas Eve and made Santa go through a bi annual check ride? Santa's doing his preflight check list preparing for take off when he looks over at the right seat and sees Bland closing the breach on a double barrel shot gun, as he says, "You're going to lose one on take off." Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

9,000 lb? We tested our shit to 20,000 lbs with out sign of damage. Our load cell only went to 20,150 lb but the real limit was that the safety bleed on the hydraulic cylinder wouldn't let us go over 20,000. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com