Hey all,
I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?

Thanks Steve

I'm very happy with my P-124:
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pages/containers/aviator.aspx
<http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pages/containers/aviator.aspx>

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

On 6/7/2017 3:49 PM, S9 wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?
>
> Thanks Steve

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:49:25 PM UTC-7, S9 wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?
>
> Thanks Steve

Love my Softy, I have a backpack type that is extremely comfortable but by all accounts all their models are quite comfortable. Had a National backpack before the Softy and hoo boy... that thing was about as comfy as wearing a bag of bricks. Both have 26' round chutes, but the Softy also has a better canopy than the National (slower decent rate) so that's also worth considering since they're not all created equal.

Dan spent considerable time researching parachutes. Here's a clip of a model he eventually chose for his wife.
https://youtu.be/gQrDIp48lQM



((with apologies to Mrs. Dan))

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:49:25 PM UTC-7, S9 wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?
>
> Thanks Steve

Steve et al:
Much depends on how you like to sit, which glider you fly, how high you fly and how much you weigh.
I had a Security 150 with dual air bladders in an LS4 and liked it, but why anyone would still use one of those ancient things as safety gear is a mystery.
Perhaps the most comfortable chute I've had was a Butler chute that Manley put together after testing options sitting in my glider outside his shop.
In narrow fuselages like Schempp-Hirth you probably won't like a large pack.
Contrary to Duster's video, Dan Marotta's wife is currently flying with the National 360 I bought for the N3 to be flown mostly below 10,000'. It fit the S-H fuselage better than the softie, but I was pushing the limits using it in the SW USA.
Like Paul's comment, I didn't think the National was comfortable until getting it packed using the modified packing method (not standard or military) available from National. Prior to that, the pilot chute spring was painful.
Currently have a ram-air chute in a Softie which is comfy and very controllable, but don't buy a square chute unless you know how to fly one!
Whichever one you end up with, purchase the sheepskin liner option.
Jim

You don't need to fly the Aviator, but you can.

Bert TW

You might want to have a look at these guys.
I saw the chute at the trade fair AERO this year.

Very light, steerable, sensible sink rate and reliable.

Possibly not the cheapest chute, but hey, what value do you put on your life?

http://www.paratec.de/?page_id=3519&lang=en

At 21:49 07 June 2017, S9 wrote:
>Hey all,
>I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most
>comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's
time
>to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable
for
>those 5+ hour flights?
>
>Thanks Steve

Is there an answer to this question, there are so many factors. I once had
a chute that was perfectly comfortable in an ASW20, but was so
uncomfortable in a Discus, that it was unflyable. Not just me, my syndicate
partners found it the same.
Dave
>

The most comfortable chute I ever flew is the BRS!
:>) JJ

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:25 PM UTC-5, S9 wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?
>
> Thanks Steve

Thanks for the responses. I agree the answer depends as in all questions. Good input on the Nationals vs Softy. The long softy looks very similar to the 150 I have currently. I use a lumbar support pad and that looks like it would work well in the long softy too.

Do most of you use the sheepskin backing or the cotton pad backing or none at all?

long shot.. .Anyone have a long softy for sale?

Thanks Steve

I have a new Softie. It is less comfortable than my previous National 425.
Regarding a ram air chute, they are designed to open softly and they take about 800' to fully open. An emergency round chute is designed to open quickly in 300'-350'. Is your momentary comfort worth that 500'?

Where I fly, the ability to fly the parachute is a big factor in
reducing the prospect of injury on landing due to canyons, rocks,
bluffs, etc. Being able to pick my touchdown point (allowing for the
winds) can make a big difference. It was for these reasons, and after
one of our pilots, a former Army jump master, received injuries after
jumping a round emergency chute near Moriarty, that I switched to a
square chute.

On 6/8/2017 12:22 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> You don't need to fly the Aviator, but you can.
>
> Bert TW

--
Dan, 5J

I have had softie and National chutes. My current chute a Butler, with air bladder lumbar support and "crash pad" (little elongated triangle temper foam pad at bottom of chute that fills space between bottom of chute and seat pan. This is by far the most comfortable chute I have ever worn. Loaned it to a friend and he too thought it the most comfortable..

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:49:25 PM UTC-7, S9 wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been flying with a Security 150 for quite a while. It is most comfortable. I tried a Security 350 and it is most uncomfortable. It's time to replace the 150. What chute do you suggest that is very comfortable for those 5+ hour flights?
>
> Thanks Steve

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:08:32 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> I have a new Softie. It is less comfortable than my previous National 425..
> Regarding a ram air chute, they are designed to open softly and they take about 800' to fully open. An emergency round chute is designed to open quickly in 300'-350'. Is your momentary comfort worth that 500'?

Not true. They are equal or the square is a bit faster. Either way opening time variances between the two overlap. Besides a handle fumble or pilot chute kicking around for a second before inflating will burn far more altitude than any difference between round/square. If I was in the business of selling pilot rigs I would go to the big contests pay a young durable skydiver to jump a round, then jump a square afterwards land and open my order book. Guaranteed every pilot who saw the difference live would bust out a credit card.

I just spoke with the president of Rigging Innovations and in response
to your claim that the ram air chute is designed to take about 800' to
open, this was part of his response: "When we certified the P-124 in
1996 it was only necessary to measure the opening time. The TSO standard
called for opening in less that 3 seconds from pack opening to inflated
canopy. There was no practical method to measure the altitude loss.
Today we have newer technology and the current TSO calls for less than 3
seconds OR less than 300 ft altitude loss."

I don't believe I'm giving up 500' by wearing my P-124.

Dan

On 6/8/2017 7:08 AM, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> I have a new Softie. It is less comfortable than my previous National 425.
> Regarding a ram air chute, they are designed to open softly and they take about 800' to fully open. An emergency round chute is designed to open quickly in 300'-350'. Is your momentary comfort worth that 500'?

--
Dan, 5J

Good points Gregg. Also in the information I received from Rigging
Innovations was a note that opening time, and hence altitude loss, is a
function of the jumper's attitude at the time of deployment, i.e., if
the deployment is downward to to the side, the opening time will be
longer. Of course, the same holds true for the round parachute.

On 6/8/2017 10:54 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:08:32 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
>> I have a new Softie. It is less comfortable than my previous National 425.
>> Regarding a ram air chute, they are designed to open softly and they take about 800' to fully open. An emergency round chute is designed to open quickly in 300'-350'. Is your momentary comfort worth that 500'?
> Not true. They are equal or the square is a bit faster. Either way opening time variances between the two overlap. Besides a handle fumble or pilot chute kicking around for a second before inflating will burn far more altitude than any difference between round/square. If I was in the business of selling pilot rigs I would go to the big contests pay a young durable skydiver to jump a round, then jump a square afterwards land and open my order book. Guaranteed every pilot who saw the difference live would bust out a credit card.

--
Dan, 5J

Considering the information came from a Master rigger (3+ decades), ex Para-Phernalia manufacturing employee, Dealer for Softie, and over 10,000 jumps, I am pretty certain his information is accurate.
Making assertions about operator error if using a round chute and not with a ram chute and using that as reason for possible performance differences is ridiculous.



> Not true. They are equal or the square is a bit faster. Either way opening time variances between the two overlap. Besides a handle fumble or pilot chute kicking around for a second before inflating will burn far more altitude than any difference between round/square. If I was in the business of selling pilot rigs I would go to the big contests pay a young durable skydiver to jump a round, then jump a square afterwards land and open my order book. Guaranteed every pilot who saw the difference live would bust out a credit card.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:55:37 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> Considering the information came from a Master rigger (3+ decades), ex Para-Phernalia manufacturing employee, Dealer for Softie, and over 10,000 jumps, I am pretty certain his information is accurate.
> Making assertions about operator error if using a round chute and not with a ram chute and using that as reason for possible performance differences is ridiculous.
>
There is your problem. Information came from someone in the business of selling round parachutes to the ignorant. Variables in deployment(pilot speed at pulling, pilot chute hesitations, etc.) variables not necessarily operator error, easily offset any difference in opening distance round/square. Although squares are faster and more reliable. And easier to find someone to pack. The most common backup automatic opener used in skydiving for the last 20+ years is set to start the reserve opening at 750' if square reserves(all there are in skydiving now) take 800' to open there are a lot of people who opened at -50' and lived.

"...if the deployment is downward or to the side, the opening time will
be longer."

What I meant to say was altitude loss would be greater.

On 6/8/2017 7:54 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Good points Gregg. Also in the information I received from Rigging
> Innovations was a note that opening time, and hence altitude loss, is
> a function of the jumper's attitude at the time of deployment, i.e.,
> if the deployment is downward to to the side, the opening time will be
> longer. Of course, the same holds true for the round parachute.
>
> On 6/8/2017 10:54 AM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:08:32 AM UTC-4, Craig Reinholt wrote:
>>> I have a new Softie. It is less comfortable than my previous
>>> National 425.
>>> Regarding a ram air chute, they are designed to open softly and they
>>> take about 800' to fully open. An emergency round chute is designed
>>> to open quickly in 300'-350'. Is your momentary comfort worth that
>>> 500'?
>> Not true. They are equal or the square is a bit faster. Either way
>> opening time variances between the two overlap. Besides a handle
>> fumble or pilot chute kicking around for a second before inflating
>> will burn far more altitude than any difference between
>> round/square. If I was in the business of selling pilot rigs I would
>> go to the big contests pay a young durable skydiver to jump a round,
>> then jump a square afterwards land and open my order book.
>> Guaranteed every pilot who saw the difference live would bust out a
>> credit card.
>

--
Dan, 5J

Am I reading you correctly? Are you trying to BS the situation with
information from "a reliable source"? I'm talking about an FAA TSO
which was tested to the FAA's satisfaction. Dream on, Friend.



On 6/8/2017 10:55 PM, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> Considering the information came from a Master rigger (3+ decades), ex Para-Phernalia manufacturing employee, Dealer for Softie, and over 10,000 jumps, I am pretty certain his information is accurate.
> Making assertions about operator error if using a round chute and not with a ram chute and using that as reason for possible performance differences is ridiculous.
>
>
>
>> Not true. They are equal or the square is a bit faster. Either way opening time variances between the two overlap. Besides a handle fumble or pilot chute kicking around for a second before inflating will burn far more altitude than any difference between round/square. If I was in the business of selling pilot rigs I would go to the big contests pay a young durable skydiver to jump a round, then jump a square afterwards land and open my order book. Guaranteed every pilot who saw the difference live would bust out a credit card.

--
Dan, 5J

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

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

But IIRC the Cirrus was over a ridge-top site when the elevator control rod snapped in the fin and the pilot was able to bail out and land in the valley.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> But IIRC the Cirrus was over a ridge-top site when the elevator control rod snapped in the fin and the pilot was able to bail out and land in the valley.

IIRC, it was at Inkpen. The only other detail I recall is that he was climbing after the high speed pass when he bailed.

Frank Whiteley

BASE jumper use square chutes and commonly deploy far lower than 800'. Many exit below 800' at zero airspeed. Given they use modified squares chutes for instant opening - something we definitely don't want.

Also note that sliders are placed on the risers of square chutes to reduce deplpyment rate and thereby reduce loads. They open too fast if no slider is installed.

Here's a video of an Aviator P-124
<https://www.dropbox.com/pri/get/Camera%20Uploads/AVIATOR_85m.wmv?_subject_uid=207008675&w=AAB3sna0KbhYv30Vc1gibEd7Ad3s0vvleos6hgFWtBbOLA>
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

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 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

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/pages/containers/aviator.aspx
<http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pages/containers/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

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Indeed!Â* The comfort is in the pack, not the canopy.Â* 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:Â*
> http://www.rigginginnovations.com/pages/containers/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.Â* 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.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 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'

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/pages/containers/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

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/pages/containers/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/pages/containers/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/pages/containers/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