emergency chute

As I understand the comments, the "square" chute would allow the "pilot" to
fly the canopy. They can be directed and with the ability to flare at the
end of the flight, just like with any other aircraft, they would therefore
have the ability to cushion the landing.

So, anyone trained would prefer a "square" chute.

So, accepting this as true, there is still one concern that needs to be
addressed. In a 2 place sailplane, the passenger gets a parachute. Even
though the pilot may have the training, the chances are very high that not
all of the passengers will have the required training, and may not
understand about flaring. Would that mean that the passenger should have a
round chute and just accept their lumps, so to speak?

Colin N12HS

snip Would that mean that the passenger should have a round chute and
just accept their lumps, so to speak? /snip

Colin: Yes, exactly.

OC: as the unidentified rigger said, the square. The chances of the
pilot being dazed and confused to the point of not even being able to
find and operate the brake/steering toggles are small, and if unable to
do so by injury or unconsciousness, I would still rather be under the
square.

2NO

OK, given the preference of those who know more than I do, I have to
ask the obvious question: Why are there still round chutes? If I order
a National or Softie from my local glider haberdasher... won't I get a
conical? I'm not disagreeing with the assessement of thems that knows.
But I would like to understand why we haven't seen a wholesale
conversion to the square.

Not a troll... though it has the earmarks, doesn't it?


wrote:
snip Would that mean that the passenger should have a round chute
and
just accept their lumps, so to speak? /snip

Colin: Yes, exactly.

OC: as the unidentified rigger said, the square. The chances of the
pilot being dazed and confused to the point of not even being able to
find and operate the brake/steering toggles are small, and if unable
to
do so by injury or unconsciousness, I would still rather be under the
square.

2NO

fiveniner: it's simple. The round chutes are cheaper and require no
training (a lot less, anyway).

I *am* surprised, however, that the square chutes aren't a tad more
popular than they are. That's probably because of a simple lack of
knowledge and the institutional momemtum of using rounds/conicals for
so many years...

ted/2NO

To Fiveniner: you can buy directly from Softie a square emergency
parachute.

To 66: it is called weathervaning...go and make a jump, don't release
your brakes and see what the canopy will do. Especially the big ones
like Raven IV.

To Eric Greenwell: no it doesn't work like that. Round/conical will
descent at that rate no matter what. There will be a small difference
in descent rate between suspended loads (heavy pilot versus light
pilot) but not a really significant number. If you would like I can
swing by the airport and drop you a book with explanations about
parachute desingns. I don't want to type the explanation because would
be to lenghty.

wrote:
To Fiveniner: you can buy directly from Softie a square emergency
parachute.

To 66: it is called weathervaning...go and make a jump, don't release
your brakes and see what the canopy will do. Especially the big ones
like Raven IV.

You need a relative difference in speed to the wind to weather vane. An
uncontrolled parachute would match the wind speed as it descends. As
you drop through the typical wind shear near the ground, it seems to me
that you would turn to land down wind if you didn't actively steer the
chute.

Shawn

How can a chute weathervane if it is freely drifting with the wind?
This sounds like the old "downwind turn" myth of general aviation fame.

I can see that if the chute is descending rapidly through a strong wind
velocity gradient, it would tend to orient into or out of the wind (not
sure which) due to the height of the chute/risers/chutist stack.

If that is the effect being described, how much of a wind gradient is
required?

Just curious,

66