MakeItHappen 15 #1 March 26, 2008 So here I am working on my rigger's ticket.... Now I'm just wondering about this *weird* jumper friend of mine. The guy tells me that he buried a 1946 twill parachute in his backyard in 1971. I go along and say 'uh-huh'. Now, from what I understand twill may be the weave used in the mfg of parachutes, whether cotton or nylon. In 1946, I don't think nylon fabrics were used for parachutes. I might be wrong on that point. The question I have is that if this 1946 parachute was buried in 1971 and uncovered today, wouldn't the material disintegrate or be almost dust-like today? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #2 March 26, 2008 What was it buried in? Naked? Water and air tight box? I think if it was naked, depending on the parasites and other things in the ground it would be compost by now....Maybe doing a bit of research into mummies would help? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 262 #3 March 26, 2008 Leaving aside the whole Mr Cooper question: I don't know details but I'm sure the USA got into nylon production and fabrics for parachutes at least by the middle of WWII, so there must have been plenty of non-natural fibre ones around by war's end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #4 March 26, 2008 A book I have from 1944 entitled "Parachute Technician" lists tensile strengths for nylon and silk fabric, and line; nylon, silk, and cotton thread; but only natural fiber webbing. I believe condition of nylon would depend mostly on UV exposure. Cotton, linen and silk may depend on water exposure more. But I don't find it unlikely that any of the material might survive relatively intact when buried. Hanging in a tree would probably be worse. Twill is a weave not a fiber material.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #5 March 26, 2008 >> So here I am working on my rigger's ticket....Good on ya, Jan! The FAA needs a good rabble rouser too. And just wait - If you thought the USPA has issues, you ain't seen nothing yet . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #6 March 26, 2008 I saw some AP photos of the canopy. Looked entirely reasonable. But you'd think they would have the serieal numbers of the canopies they gave him. The serial number is easily read and reported in the media. Why, in the one news account I read, the FBI is 'hoping' someone with parachute expertise will come forward to help them identify it is a mystery. Somebody out there give them a call!It looked like the complete canopy. There should/could/would be another data panel on the other side with the manufacturer. The records of the serial number probably exist. Irwin was able to pull from their archives a seat pack from the same production run as the one Bush 41 used to bail out in WWII. Man, it shouldn't be that tough. Of course it may be a personal time investigation. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Programmer 0 #7 March 26, 2008 The U.S. quit using silk for parachutes in WWII because it was kinda hard to get silk from Japan or China at that time. There's a good chance a 1946 rig would be nylon, but there were probably a lot of silk parachutes still around then. I have a 1950 manufactured rig that is no longer airworthy, but has survived quite well otherwise, with all serial numbers intact. I guess if it had been buried in the back yard in a place with a damp, cool climate about 35 or 37 years ago, it could still be in relatively good shape for identification purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #9 March 27, 2008 Quote The guy tells me that he buried a 1946 twill parachute in his backyard in 1971. I go along and say 'uh-huh'. Now, from what I understand twill may be the weave used in the mfg of parachutes, whether cotton or nylon. In 1946, I don't think nylon fabrics were used for parachutes. I might be wrong on that point. The question I have is that if this 1946 parachute was buried in 1971 and uncovered today, wouldn't the material disintegrate or be almost dust-like today? Is this some sort of weird question on how to properly put a parachute in long term storage?? I don't remember this one from the writted, but I hear its changed since I took it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peckerhead 0 #10 March 27, 2008 I have a canopy that is only two years old (main) and already you can't read the serial number on the orange data panel. I guess they had better ink in 1946. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #11 March 29, 2008 Quote I have a canopy that is only two years old (main) and already you can't read the serial number on the orange data panel. I guess they had better ink in 1946. They did. Now a-days, you're not allowed to use the stuff they did in the 40s anymore. It was found to cause cancer, hair-loss, impotence and birth defects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonnyGuru 0 #12 March 29, 2008 Well if the parachute was manufactured back then it was probably from natural fibers... Prabably silk or something... You wouldn't trust your life to it that's for sure.... Make the most of what ya got! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #13 March 31, 2008 QuoteIn 1946, I don't think nylon fabrics were used for parachutes. For what it's worth, I have a Feb. 1958 ripstop C-9 in my garage. The first one I ever owned. My guess is that nylon was in use by the end of WW-2."Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
