most comfortable parachute ?

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:46:10 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well Uli, since you asked a specific question regarding landings I'll
tell you my experience and my personal conclusions.

In military flying training, we para-sailed using a standard C-9 canopy
on land using a truck as a tow vehicle and in the ocean using a landing
craft as the tow. Water landings are a non-event either way but on land
it's a different story.

We all (should) know how to do a parachute landing fall (PLF). You
know, balls of the feet, calf of the leg, hip, back of the shoulder
while turning and rolling. I recall my first PLF as balls of feet,
knees, elbows, and face. Fortunately I was wearing a flight helmet and,
as I recall, it broke the visor cover. More practice produced the
desired result but even a great PLF was harsh given the approximate 19
feet per second descent rate, equivalent to "jumping off the garage", as
they told us.

I did seven jumps (Instructor Aided Deployment) with either a 260 or 280
sq. ft. ram air chute. The sport rigs are about half of that area but I
chose the large chute because most of my flying is in the high deserts
of the American Southwest and I wanted the slowest descent possible
giver our rugged terrain.

Steering the C-9 28' round canopy was sluggish at best and impossible at
worst, and is accomplished by grabbing a rear riser in the direction you
want to turn and pulling it down about to your shoulder. Then you wait
for something to happen. In practice we were trained to cut the four
middle lines at the back of the canopy to create a lobe which would
spill out air giving us forward velocity and reducing oscillation. My
prior Pioneer Thin Pack had a mesh panel at the back to accomplish the
same thing.

Steering the ram air canopy is accomplished by pulling down on one of
the steering toggles. The turns are crisp, quick, and delightful with a
high rate of turn. For landing a pattern is flown just like in a
glider, even using very similar altitudes, only closer to the desired
landing point. Downwind, base, and final and they teach no turns on
final except for minor steering turns. Landing consist of a flare just
like in a glider and a gentle touch down.

In my seven jumps I was never able to make a stand up landing and so
resorted to the standard PLF. Analyzing my problem after I decided that
jumping was fun and expensive and I was done, revealed to me that I was
using the visual clues that I was used to in my LAK-17a, i.e., being
very close to the ground before beginning the flare. I was always lower
than a standing position before flaring and so could not stand up.
Regardless, the landings were very gentle.

The president of Rigging Innovations reminded me that "the P-124 opens
in approximately an 80% braked configuration. This slows the forward
speed down considerably. The steering "toggles/loops" have only a 10"
deflection so the jumper cannot stall the canopy or do a radical turn
near the ground. At max weigh of 300# the forward speed is approximately
12-14 mph. In a no wind condition a forward plf has a very low rate of
descent. We've always known that it is the vertical rate of descent that
injures the jumper, not the horizontal. Hit and roll is what I was
taught many years ago when I started skydiving and jumped round
parachutes. When I jumped the TSO test parachutes in 1996, I was
weighted up to around 200# as I only weighed 150# at the time. In
landing into the wind of approximately 10 mph, I could do stand up,
hands off landings, which was pretty impressive due to the almost no
forward speed. I would not recommend trying this yourself."

There you have it. I don't look forward to using my ram air chute, but
I have absolutely no worries about doing it, if necessary. Oh yeah,
regarding comfort, it's the pack, not the canopy. I use an inflatable
bladder that I bought through an ad in Soaring magazine way back in
1986-87. It leaks a bit now, but still does what I need it to do.

Regards,
Dan

On 6/11/2017 8:48 AM, AS wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Indeed! The comfort is in the pack, not the canopy. I made no
negative statements about round canopies in my original response,
which I've repeated below:



"I'm very happy with my P-124:
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pa...s/aviator.aspx



I have a 280 sq. ft. ram air rectangular chute which provides a lot
of control and a very soft landing."



With the continuous bombardment of false claims we're subjected to,
I couldn't let pass the false statement about an 800' opening
requirement and an unnamed source of the information as fact. Sorry
about the thread drift but, in doing my research, I've found that
I'm not only happy with the comfort of my pack, but also with the
performance potential of the canopy (a different topic, I know).



Dan




On 6/9/2017 7:53 PM, JS wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:


Here's a video
of an Aviator P-124 being jumped at a height of 85 meters (276
ft) and 80 knots. Opening time was 2.1 seconds. I had to review
closely to verify that the chute was equipped with a slider. Note
that the jumper had a 25 second ride after full deployment.




On 6/9/2017 10:40 AM, Frank Whiteley
wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:20:43 AM UTC-6, Duster wrote:


Mine's a Strong 303 (26' conical; back). Comfy with sheepskin.. Here's a video of a model 304 (26" conical; chair) in action with the same canopy I believe. 2011 bailout from a disabled Mustang. Legend states bailout was less than 500', but with what seems a delay in pilot-chute deployment yields a very quick, low-altitude loss safe. Make your own calculations.. Isn't the speed and direction of travel at deployment key factors (e.g., Jumping from vertical @ 0 mph results in greater alt loss than at 45 degrees @ 100 mph)?

https://youtu.be/ygcaalz6IRA

Mike


The old Irvin EB80 was reckoned to be life saving from 100ft with 100kts horizontal speed. There was a VTC Open Cirrus that fluttered apart on a high speed pass in the UK many years ago and the pilot bailed and survived with one. I tried to buy one new but there was a 6 months waiting list, so settled for a very comfortable GQ Silhouette which was lifed at 15 years;^(. Replaced it with a Butler, which is fine.

Frank Whiteley





--

Dan, 5J


I must appologise for bringing up square chutes, as the thread has gone off the tracks as usual. This was supposed to be about comfort. They are not mutually exclusive, but separate considerations.
Jim





--

Dan, 5J
Not wanting to derail this thread any further (if that is even possible) but realistically, how difficult is it to use a ram-air chute vs. a round canopy? I have only three static line jumps under a military style Pioneer L-10 and the landings were - shall we say - harsh and firm!
My current shut is nearing its service life and I am looking for options.

Uli
'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

Moved Square chute things to another thread.
Jim

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:46:10 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well Uli, since you asked a specific question regarding landings I'll
tell you my experience and my personal conclusions.

In military flying training, we para-sailed using a standard C-9 canopy
on land using a truck as a tow vehicle and in the ocean using a landing
craft as the tow. Water landings are a non-event either way but on land
it's a different story.

We all (should) know how to do a parachute landing fall (PLF). You
know, balls of the feet, calf of the leg, hip, back of the shoulder
while turning and rolling. I recall my first PLF as balls of feet,
knees, elbows, and face. Fortunately I was wearing a flight helmet and,
as I recall, it broke the visor cover. More practice produced the
desired result but even a great PLF was harsh given the approximate 19
feet per second descent rate, equivalent to "jumping off the garage", as
they told us.

I did seven jumps (Instructor Aided Deployment) with either a 260 or 280
sq. ft. ram air chute. The sport rigs are about half of that area but I
chose the large chute because most of my flying is in the high deserts
of the American Southwest and I wanted the slowest descent possible
giver our rugged terrain.

Steering the C-9 28' round canopy was sluggish at best and impossible at
worst, and is accomplished by grabbing a rear riser in the direction you
want to turn and pulling it down about to your shoulder. Then you wait
for something to happen. In practice we were trained to cut the four
middle lines at the back of the canopy to create a lobe which would
spill out air giving us forward velocity and reducing oscillation. My
prior Pioneer Thin Pack had a mesh panel at the back to accomplish the
same thing.

Steering the ram air canopy is accomplished by pulling down on one of
the steering toggles. The turns are crisp, quick, and delightful with a
high rate of turn. For landing a pattern is flown just like in a
glider, even using very similar altitudes, only closer to the desired
landing point. Downwind, base, and final and they teach no turns on
final except for minor steering turns. Landing consist of a flare just
like in a glider and a gentle touch down.

In my seven jumps I was never able to make a stand up landing and so
resorted to the standard PLF. Analyzing my problem after I decided that
jumping was fun and expensive and I was done, revealed to me that I was
using the visual clues that I was used to in my LAK-17a, i.e., being
very close to the ground before beginning the flare. I was always lower
than a standing position before flaring and so could not stand up.
Regardless, the landings were very gentle.

The president of Rigging Innovations reminded me that "the P-124 opens
in approximately an 80% braked configuration. This slows the forward
speed down considerably. The steering "toggles/loops" have only a 10"
deflection so the jumper cannot stall the canopy or do a radical turn
near the ground. At max weigh of 300# the forward speed is approximately
12-14 mph. In a no wind condition a forward plf has a very low rate of
descent. We've always known that it is the vertical rate of descent that
injures the jumper, not the horizontal. Hit and roll is what I was
taught many years ago when I started skydiving and jumped round
parachutes. When I jumped the TSO test parachutes in 1996, I was
weighted up to around 200# as I only weighed 150# at the time. In
landing into the wind of approximately 10 mph, I could do stand up,
hands off landings, which was pretty impressive due to the almost no
forward speed. I would not recommend trying this yourself."

There you have it. I don't look forward to using my ram air chute, but
I have absolutely no worries about doing it, if necessary. Oh yeah,
regarding comfort, it's the pack, not the canopy. I use an inflatable
bladder that I bought through an ad in Soaring magazine way back in
1986-87. It leaks a bit now, but still does what I need it to do.

Regards,
Dan

On 6/11/2017 8:48 AM, AS wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Indeed! The comfort is in the pack, not the canopy. I made no
negative statements about round canopies in my original response,
which I've repeated below:



"I'm very happy with my P-124:
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pa...s/aviator.aspx



I have a 280 sq. ft. ram air rectangular chute which provides a lot
of control and a very soft landing."



With the continuous bombardment of false claims we're subjected to,
I couldn't let pass the false statement about an 800' opening
requirement and an unnamed source of the information as fact. Sorry
about the thread drift but, in doing my research, I've found that
I'm not only happy with the comfort of my pack, but also with the
performance potential of the canopy (a different topic, I know).



Dan




On 6/9/2017 7:53 PM, JS wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:


Here's a video
of an Aviator P-124 being jumped at a height of 85 meters (276
ft) and 80 knots. Opening time was 2.1 seconds. I had to review
closely to verify that the chute was equipped with a slider. Note
that the jumper had a 25 second ride after full deployment.




On 6/9/2017 10:40 AM, Frank Whiteley
wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:20:43 AM UTC-6, Duster wrote:


Mine's a Strong 303 (26' conical; back). Comfy with sheepskin.. Here's a video of a model 304 (26" conical; chair) in action with the same canopy I believe. 2011 bailout from a disabled Mustang. Legend states bailout was less than 500', but with what seems a delay in pilot-chute deployment yields a very quick, low-altitude loss safe. Make your own calculations.. Isn't the speed and direction of travel at deployment key factors (e.g., Jumping from vertical @ 0 mph results in greater alt loss than at 45 degrees @ 100 mph)?

https://youtu.be/ygcaalz6IRA

Mike


The old Irvin EB80 was reckoned to be life saving from 100ft with 100kts horizontal speed. There was a VTC Open Cirrus that fluttered apart on a high speed pass in the UK many years ago and the pilot bailed and survived with one. I tried to buy one new but there was a 6 months waiting list, so settled for a very comfortable GQ Silhouette which was lifed at 15 years;^(. Replaced it with a Butler, which is fine.

Frank Whiteley





--

Dan, 5J


I must appologise for bringing up square chutes, as the thread has gone off the tracks as usual. This was supposed to be about comfort. They are not mutually exclusive, but separate considerations.
Jim





--

Dan, 5J
Not wanting to derail this thread any further (if that is even possible) but realistically, how difficult is it to use a ram-air chute vs. a round canopy? I have only three static line jumps under a military style Pioneer L-10 and the landings were - shall we say - harsh and firm!
My current shut is nearing its service life and I am looking for options.

Uli
'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

Dan - I will be in your neck of the woods next week. Which hangar do you hang out? Maybe you can show me your chute if you are not too busy flying.
Uli
'AS'

Uli,

I'd be glad to show you my chute. I can usually be found at Hangar 33
which you'll see immediately as you make a left turn on airport
property. If not there, I'll likely be hanging out at Sundance Aviation
at the southeast corner of the hangars or flying. Let me know when
you'll be here and I'll make a point of being available.

Dan
505-225-4567



On 6/11/2017 9:41 PM, AS wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:46:10 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Well Uli, since you asked a specific question regarding landings I'll
tell you my experience and my personal conclusions.

In military flying training, we para-sailed using a standard C-9 canopy
on land using a truck as a tow vehicle and in the ocean using a landing
craft as the tow. Water landings are a non-event either way but on land
it's a different story.

We all (should) know how to do a parachute landing fall (PLF). You
know, balls of the feet, calf of the leg, hip, back of the shoulder
while turning and rolling. I recall my first PLF as balls of feet,
knees, elbows, and face. Fortunately I was wearing a flight helmet and,
as I recall, it broke the visor cover. More practice produced the
desired result but even a great PLF was harsh given the approximate 19
feet per second descent rate, equivalent to "jumping off the garage", as
they told us.

I did seven jumps (Instructor Aided Deployment) with either a 260 or 280
sq. ft. ram air chute. The sport rigs are about half of that area but I
chose the large chute because most of my flying is in the high deserts
of the American Southwest and I wanted the slowest descent possible
giver our rugged terrain.

Steering the C-9 28' round canopy was sluggish at best and impossible at
worst, and is accomplished by grabbing a rear riser in the direction you
want to turn and pulling it down about to your shoulder. Then you wait
for something to happen. In practice we were trained to cut the four
middle lines at the back of the canopy to create a lobe which would
spill out air giving us forward velocity and reducing oscillation. My
prior Pioneer Thin Pack had a mesh panel at the back to accomplish the
same thing.

Steering the ram air canopy is accomplished by pulling down on one of
the steering toggles. The turns are crisp, quick, and delightful with a
high rate of turn. For landing a pattern is flown just like in a
glider, even using very similar altitudes, only closer to the desired
landing point. Downwind, base, and final and they teach no turns on
final except for minor steering turns. Landing consist of a flare just
like in a glider and a gentle touch down.

In my seven jumps I was never able to make a stand up landing and so
resorted to the standard PLF. Analyzing my problem after I decided that
jumping was fun and expensive and I was done, revealed to me that I was
using the visual clues that I was used to in my LAK-17a, i.e., being
very close to the ground before beginning the flare. I was always lower
than a standing position before flaring and so could not stand up.
Regardless, the landings were very gentle.

The president of Rigging Innovations reminded me that "the P-124 opens
in approximately an 80% braked configuration. This slows the forward
speed down considerably. The steering "toggles/loops" have only a 10"
deflection so the jumper cannot stall the canopy or do a radical turn
near the ground. At max weigh of 300# the forward speed is approximately
12-14 mph. In a no wind condition a forward plf has a very low rate of
descent. We've always known that it is the vertical rate of descent that
injures the jumper, not the horizontal. Hit and roll is what I was
taught many years ago when I started skydiving and jumped round
parachutes. When I jumped the TSO test parachutes in 1996, I was
weighted up to around 200# as I only weighed 150# at the time. In
landing into the wind of approximately 10 mph, I could do stand up,
hands off landings, which was pretty impressive due to the almost no
forward speed. I would not recommend trying this yourself."

There you have it. I don't look forward to using my ram air chute, but
I have absolutely no worries about doing it, if necessary. Oh yeah,
regarding comfort, it's the pack, not the canopy. I use an inflatable
bladder that I bought through an ad in Soaring magazine way back in
1986-87. It leaks a bit now, but still does what I need it to do.

Regards,
Dan

On 6/11/2017 8:48 AM, AS wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Indeed! The comfort is in the pack, not the canopy. I made no
negative statements about round canopies in my original response,
which I've repeated below:



"I'm very happy with my P-124:
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pa...s/aviator.aspx



I have a 280 sq. ft. ram air rectangular chute which provides a lot
of control and a very soft landing."



With the continuous bombardment of false claims we're subjected to,
I couldn't let pass the false statement about an 800' opening
requirement and an unnamed source of the information as fact. Sorry
about the thread drift but, in doing my research, I've found that
I'm not only happy with the comfort of my pack, but also with the
performance potential of the canopy (a different topic, I know).



Dan




On 6/9/2017 7:53 PM, JS wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:


Here's a video
of an Aviator P-124 being jumped at a height of 85 meters (276
ft) and 80 knots. Opening time was 2.1 seconds. I had to review
closely to verify that the chute was equipped with a slider. Note
that the jumper had a 25 second ride after full deployment.




On 6/9/2017 10:40 AM, Frank Whiteley
wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:20:43 AM UTC-6, Duster wrote:


Mine's a Strong 303 (26' conical; back). Comfy with sheepskin. Here's a video of a model 304 (26" conical; chair) in action with the same canopy I believe. 2011 bailout from a disabled Mustang. Legend states bailout was less than 500', but with what seems a delay in pilot-chute deployment yields a very quick, low-altitude loss safe. Make your own calculations. Isn't the speed and direction of travel at deployment key factors (e.g., Jumping from vertical @ 0 mph results in greater alt loss than at 45 degrees @ 100 mph)?

https://youtu.be/ygcaalz6IRA

Mike


The old Irvin EB80 was reckoned to be life saving from 100ft with 100kts horizontal speed. There was a VTC Open Cirrus that fluttered apart on a high speed pass in the UK many years ago and the pilot bailed and survived with one. I tried to buy one new but there was a 6 months waiting list, so settled for a very comfortable GQ Silhouette which was lifed at 15 years;^(. Replaced it with a Butler, which is fine.

Frank Whiteley





--

Dan, 5J


I must appologise for bringing up square chutes, as the thread has gone off the tracks as usual. This was supposed to be about comfort. They are not mutually exclusive, but separate considerations.
Jim





--

Dan, 5J
Not wanting to derail this thread any further (if that is even possible) but realistically, how difficult is it to use a ram-air chute vs. a round canopy? I have only three static line jumps under a military style Pioneer L-10 and the landings were - shall we say - harsh and firm!
My current shut is nearing its service life and I am looking for options.

Uli
'AS'
--
Dan, 5J
Dan - I will be in your neck of the woods next week. Which hangar do you hang out? Maybe you can show me your chute if you are not too busy flying.
Uli
'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Here's a video
of an Aviator P-124 being jumped at a height of 85 meters (276
ft) and 80 knots.Â* Opening time was 2.1 seconds.Â* I had to review
closely to verify that the chute was equipped with a slider.Â* Note
that the jumper had a 25 second ride after full deployment.




On 6/9/2017 10:40 AM, Frank Whiteley
wrote:



On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:20:43 AM UTC-6, Duster wrote:


Mine's a Strong 303 (26' conical; back). Comfy with sheepskin. Here's a video of a model 304 (26" conical; chair) in action with the same canopy I believe. 2011 bailout from a disabled Mustang. Legend states bailout was less than 500', but with what seems a delay in pilot-chute deployment yields a very quick, low-altitude loss safe. Make your own calculations. Isn't the speed and direction of travel at deployment key factors (e.g., Jumping from vertical @ 0 mph results in greater alt loss than at 45 degrees @ 100 mph)?

https://youtu.be/ygcaalz6IRA

Mike


The old Irvin EB80 was reckoned to be life saving from 100ft with 100kts horizontal speed. There was a VTC Open Cirrus that fluttered apart on a high speed pass in the UK many years ago and the pilot bailed and survived with one. I tried to buy one new but there was a 6 months waiting list, so settled for a very comfortable GQ Silhouette which was lifed at 15 years;^(. Replaced it with a Butler, which is fine.

Frank Whiteley





--

Dan, 5J

I couldn't access the video, but 2.1 sec equates to 72 ft freefall. The TSO opening time, 3 sec, is 145 ft. Adding just 2 more sec increases the freefall distance to 400 ft. Distance, of course, goes up as the square of time (1/2*a*t^2, a = 32 ft/s^2).

Tom