Vector Reserve Pilot Chute Video

[df8m1 24]

"The problem is there is no-one or organization that is going to conduct such a study. It's expensive and the results might be negative toward manufacturers."

I was told about this thread by one of my partners, as I don't follow DZ.com much any more.

He suggested that we offer to conduct a series of comparative tests, using custom data acquisition equipment we have designed for the USDA Forestry Service Smoke Jumpers, to measure and record parachute opening and flight characteristics for both main and reserve parachutes.

Looking past the "pissing contest" aspects of the discussion, it does pose an intriguing challenge, and could result in new information that could increase the chance one of us walks away from a less than ideal reserve deployment situation.

The first major problem that I thought of was, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to.

Speaking hypothetically, what if the data showed results that were not expected, regardless of whether it supports a positive or negative result? Either way it could like removing an air mattress from its box, it is easy to get it out, but once its out, you can never get it back in, regardless if it is the mattress you want to use or not. Same goes for ANY data, regardless of the validity, once it is out there you cant get it back in the box.

I do not mean to imply that any manufacturer would prefer not to know if improvements could be made to their equipment, to the contrary, I believe each manufacturer would be very interested in any "conclusive" data collected that involved one of their products.

The problem is the data being "conclusive" when the tests need to be conducted in the same non-controlled environment where the equipment is expected to perform. Wind tunnels are a convenient controlled environment, but the reserve system is not in a controlled wind tunnel when it is relied upon to save ones life, and it is in that environment that every jumper is interested in how their equipment will perform.

It would take a lot of collaborative work to identify what specific equipment was to be tested, the scenarios in which it is to be tested, the design of each test, the evaluation process and standards to evaluate that the tests were conducted with in the parameters of the agreed upon scenario for each test, method of interfacing the data collection system with the gear as to have the least impact on the performance of the equipment being tested, and the interpretation of the collected data.

Personally and professionally, I would never conduct any testing of any equipment without expressed consent from the manufacturer of the equipment being tested, and without their input and assistance in the testing process.

It would be an interesting research project though.

[Rdutch 0]

Having shot many many Aff video's with spring loaded vector style main pilot chutes, and non vector style pilot chutes (Non-mesh=vector style and pc's with mesh=non vector style). On the vector student rig, the spring loaded main pc's are the same as the reserve pc, I dont know if the pc on the non vector rig's are the same as the reserve pc's. I can honestly say I saw very few instances of burble bouncing on the vector pc's, as compared to the non vector pc's, there was also a very big burble due to the instructor/s and the students, I would never claim a 100% non burble launch with any system. The vector pc also has a lot stronger spring than most systems, but this was from a main deployment so its hard to compare because different rigs have more/less flaps to deal with on the reserve system, but that isnt the issue on this topic. Also not every pc with mesh has the same design so I dont want to testify that the mesh design is a bad design, I would just like to state that the meshless design worked very well.
The deployments I saw were on pc's that had hundreds if not thousands of deployments on them. The meshless pc's catch air even if they arent facing top up. Im not saying that all pc's with mesh wont catch air unless they are facing top up, because quite frankly I'm not familiar with every type of pc out there. I can only testify to the effectiveness of the Vector style pc from personal experience with them.
I think almost any pc will create drag on its own, possibly enough to have it end up top up, due to the resistance of the bridle and the wind blowing the pc forcing the pc to turn top up. But this is skydiving anything is possible. Given the choice I would rather have a reserve PC that creates signifigant drag regardless of direction it is facing.

I did work with PD on reserve testing where we dropped heavy weights with a canopy attatched inside a container from a B25, at altitudes lower than 500ft. For these tests we used vector pc's and none of the drops I witnessed ever had an issue from the pc we used causing a delayed opening. We tried as hard as we could to have the drop system fall with the weight underneath the canopy. But no system is perfect, so there was deployments where the pc fired in different directions than straight up, I never saw any problems from the pc.

And the best test that I have performed myself:
After talking to Bill about why he designed the reserve PC the way he did, was to cause signifigant drag whatever direction the pc is facing in the wind.
So I took a vector pc while riding in the back of a truck, and held it up in the wind and moved it in many different configurations, sideways, upside down, normal ect. There was signifigant drag, definitely enough to deploy a reserve, whatever direction the pc was facing. This was enough proof for me, on how well the Vector style pc works. I tried it with a pc with a mesh bottom and had very different results. The mesh bottomed pc had to be facing where some wind had to inflate the pc to create signifigant drag.
Would I jump a rig with a mesh bottom reserve? Yes, but if I was very low and had to rely on a pc to extract and deploy my reserve, I would choose the Vector style pc every time.

It is no secret that I am a vector fan, but the reason I am a vector fan is because they EARNED it. I do think there are many very well designed rig's on the market, most of the gear manufacturers out there have been making rigs for many years, they have had plenty of saves on their systems. Companies dont stay open for long with unsafe gear.

The non mesh reserve pc from what I have seen, and tested worked very well as it was designed to do.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[Andy_Copland 0]

I held a mesh bottom PC out a car window sideways and it about tore my arm off. What you say about the RDutch?!?!?! Huh? Yo momma.

Tri risers suck, javelins suck, drogueless tandems suck.

Racers, fuck yea id take one. Sherman, feel free to sponsor me i sold all my gear for recreational activities.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Halfpastniner 0]

Quote

I held a mesh bottom PC out a car window sideways and it about tore my arm off. What you say about the RDutch?!?!?! Huh? Yo momma.

What size PC was it?

Quote

Tri risers suck, javelins suck, drogueless tandems suck.

You suck!

Quote

Racers, fuck yea id take one. Sherman, feel free to sponsor me i sold all my gear for recreational activities.

You sold all of your gear for a one month subscription to a minority midget porn website again?

BASE 1384

[tdog 0]

Quote

Personally and professionally, I would never conduct any testing of any equipment without expressed consent from the manufacturer of the equipment being tested, and without their input and assistance in the testing process.

Does Consumer Reports ask permission of the companies to test their products? Does the IRS ask if they can audit you? Does the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ask the manufactures before they crash test a car and publish the results? Did the federal government ask Toyota if they could investigate the latest problems (although I think in this case the politicians did it for other reasons)....

3rd parties doing testing without the manufacture helping is what keeps manufactures on their toes and challenges them to make newer, better, safer products and gives them the necessary fear of shortcomings being exposed. In any industry. Not saying we need it in our industry, but fair testing couldn't hurt.... (The problem with any testing is that the manufacturer's then design to the test, as in car manufactures making an exact replica of the crash test scenarios and perfecting their car, not to the real world issues, so in our case I hope the testing would be as close to real world as possible).

[df8m1 24]

Quote

Quote

Does Consumer Reports ask permission of the companies to test their products? Does the IRS ask if they can audit you? Does the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ask the manufactures before they crash test a car and publish the results? Did the federal government ask Toyota if they could investigate the latest problems (although I think in this case the politicians did it for other reasons)....

3rd parties doing testing without the manufacture helping is what keeps manufactures on their toes and challenges them to make newer, better, safer products and gives them the necessary fear of shortcomings being exposed. In any industry. Not saying we need it in our industry, but fair testing couldn't hurt.... (The problem with any testing is that the manufacturer's then design to the test, as in car manufactures making an exact replica of the crash test scenarios and perfecting their car, not to the real world issues, so in our case I hope the testing would be as close to real world as possible).

I totally agree with what you are saying. That being said, I don't want to be that guy.

I have too much personal respect for the manufacturers to assume that I know best how to test their equipment when I do not have access to the parameters in which the equipment was designed to, as there are two types of tests, tests to evaluate if the product is performing as it is designed to, and tests to evaluate how the product performs in a specific application.

For example, if you preformed a design test with a 120 sqft reserve, it will pass, as it was tested using parameters that are scaled for a 120 sqft reserve. But if you tested that same 120 sqft reserve in an application with a terminal deployment and wing loading of 10 to 1, then the outcome may not be as positive. This is an extreme example, but perhaps another thing that needs to be decided upon is weather to test the design performance of the pilot chutes, or the application performance.

Another view point is that a lack of design information would actually be an asset, as it would allow the tester to conduct tests without any influence of prejudice, (designing tests to achieve a preferred outcome based on knowledge of what types of tests would help make a particular manufacturers equipment look as good as possible).

By not directly involving the manufacturers of the equipment that is being tested, it opens up the door for that manufacturer to dispute every aspect of the test as apposed to focusing on the results of the tests that they signed off on, and applying the knowledge to their product. Some ones equipment always comes up short, it is a reality that is unavoidable, and why I said, "Never ask a question you do not already know the answer too".

We, the skydiving community, are a very small family, and I think that we should look after our own. Bringing in an external entity to conduct “independent tests” is asking for trouble IMO.

Personally I think it would say a lot to the skydiving community and the wufos, if the manufacturers came together on this subject, and worked together in an effort to identify any possible improvements to, and or, set standards for reserve pilot chutes that could increase the chance that a jumper just has to buy a bottle and a case of bear instead of going for a well illuminated ride.

[JerryBaumchen 1,304]

Hi df8m1,

Quote

Personally I think it would say a lot to the skydiving community and the wufos, if the manufacturers came together on this subject,

Well, good luck with that.

Actually, they have: It is called TSO-testing.

Some info, which I think is correct:

When the original Wonderhog ( and the Vector III is a later version under the same TSO-authorization) was TSO-tested ( under C23(b) ) the mfr ( Bill Booth/RWS/now UPT ) did not make a reserve pilot chute. I do not know what reserve pilot chute(s) that they used during the TSO-testing. And I do not know how much testing that they performed when they introduced their Vector II meshless reserve pilot chute; but I would think quite a bit.

Al MacDonald of Flying High Mfg in Canada used the Vector II reserve pilot chute during TSO-testing of his Sidewinder ( under C23[c] ) which is a lot more test drops/jumps than the earlier C23(b).

I also 'think' Stunts Unlimited used the Vector II reserve pilot chute in their TSO-testing ( I think under C23(c) ), but I do not know this as a fact. I do know that he used my drop test dummy.

That proves to me that the Vector II reserve pilot chute is adequate for the task.

As for my personal opinion of it; I'll keep that to myself.

JerryBaumchen

[lilchief 1]

One side says: "My shit works best!"

The other side says; "My shit works better!"

Customers say: "We don't know!!! And we don't want to fin out if it works!"

Conspirators says: "well, they didn't to that test THAT way regarding THAT parameter, because their shit would fail"

I say... :"Fuck it..let's just pull a little higher, don't jump under influence, don't cut any corners and hopefully we'll reduce the chances that we will put the testing and theory to the final test as test dummies...with a fast pulse".

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Having shot many many Aff video's with spring loaded vector style main pilot chutes, and non vector style pilot chutes (Non-mesh=vector style and pc's with mesh=non vector style). On the vector student rig, the spring loaded main pc's are the same as the reserve pc, I dont know if the pc on the non vector rig's are the same as the reserve pc's. I can honestly say I saw very few instances of burble bouncing on the vector pc's, as compared to the non vector pc's, there was also a very big burble due to the instructor/s and the students, I would never claim a 100% non burble launch with any system. The vector pc also has a lot stronger spring than most systems, but this was from a main deployment so its hard to compare because different rigs have more/less flaps to deal with on the reserve system, but that isnt the issue on this topic. Also not every pc with mesh has the same design so I dont want to testify that the mesh design is a bad design, I would just like to state that the meshless design worked very well.
The deployments I saw were on pc's that had hundreds if not thousands of deployments on them. The meshless pc's catch air even if they arent facing top up. Im not saying that all pc's with mesh wont catch air unless they are facing top up, because quite frankly I'm not familiar with every type of pc out there. I can only testify to the effectiveness of the Vector style pc from personal experience with them.
I think almost any pc will create drag on its own, possibly enough to have it end up top up, due to the resistance of the bridle and the wind blowing the pc forcing the pc to turn top up. But this is skydiving anything is possible. Given the choice I would rather have a reserve PC that creates signifigant drag regardless of direction it is facing.

I did work with PD on reserve testing where we dropped heavy weights with a canopy attatched inside a container from a B25, at altitudes lower than 500ft. For these tests we used vector pc's and none of the drops I witnessed ever had an issue from the pc we used causing a delayed opening. We tried as hard as we could to have the drop system fall with the weight underneath the canopy. But no system is perfect, so there was deployments where the pc fired in different directions than straight up, I never saw any problems from the pc.

And the best test that I have performed myself:
After talking to Bill about why he designed the reserve PC the way he did, was to cause signifigant drag whatever direction the pc is facing in the wind.
So I took a vector pc while riding in the back of a truck, and held it up in the wind and moved it in many different configurations, sideways, upside down, normal ect. There was signifigant drag, definitely enough to deploy a reserve, whatever direction the pc was facing. This was enough proof for me, on how well the Vector style pc works. I tried it with a pc with a mesh bottom and had very different results. The mesh bottomed pc had to be facing where some wind had to inflate the pc to create signifigant drag.
Would I jump a rig with a mesh bottom reserve? Yes, but if I was very low and had to rely on a pc to extract and deploy my reserve, I would choose the Vector style pc every time.

It is no secret that I am a vector fan, but the reason I am a vector fan is because they EARNED it. I do think there are many very well designed rig's on the market, most of the gear manufacturers out there have been making rigs for many years, they have had plenty of saves on their systems. Companies dont stay open for long with unsafe gear.

The non mesh reserve pc from what I have seen, and tested worked very well as it was designed to do.

Ray.... good stuff and yes I know you are biased but I also believe you when you say that bias was EARNED.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[thedude325 0]

Quote

I held a mesh bottom PC out a car window sideways and it about tore my arm off.

I was driving to the dz to drop my rig (vector II) off for a reserve repack the other day. I had popped the reserve during my EP review, and had my rig sitting on the back seat. This day was particularly hot, and my A/C needs a recharge. So I rolled the driver's side window down, that is, until I saw a big yellow balloon in my rearview mirror. I nearly shit a brick as I frantically rolled it up.

I was very impressed at how well it inflated!

Flame on!

[jumpwally 0]

Yeah, right, i'll beleive that.....

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[dorbie 0]

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior to the one he was already shipping when he already has an unchallenged reputation for industry innovations?

You don't design a product like this based on a single jump, but capturing all that data and evidence in a single video + post would be impossible.

It's not proof, but it is illustrative along with the explanation.

Full points for cynicism through.

The purchasing decision still rests with you.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior to the one he was already shipping when he already has an unchallenged reputation for industry innovations?

I am not saying this is the case here. But many companies end up releasing products that are inferior to previous models. I can't see a reason why they would do in intentionally but it does happen.

Quote

You don't design a product like this based on a single jump, but capturing all that data and evidence in a single video + post would be impossible.

How many test jumps on products have you done? I would like to know since you have not filled out a single thing in your profile. Have done many test jumps and have worked with companies, I know what goes into things. Your wrong about designing things. Usually it happens because of a single jump and then they start to improve and collect the data as needed. They don't release a product on a single jump.

You can believe anything you want about me. I own UPT products. If it wasn't more for self interest, then answer me this. Is anybody or manufacturer allowed to use the design free of charge? There are things in skydiving out there that benefit the community that anybody can use without charge because these people wanted to benefit everyone and didn't want personal gain.

All I want is some real data to make a decision on instead of a video that is going to highlight the product because it is from a manufacturer. Independent studies would solve much of the debates that skydivers have about gear. Really that is all I want. I doubt that is going to happen so I will continue to be objective in what I see instead of accepting everything on face value or because someone tells I should.

[NovaTTT 2]

Quote

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior

I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT UPT, MAKING INSINUATIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT UPT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT UPT.

This happens all the time in industry. The reason, of course, is money, which is to say, profit. The reduction of production costs with a fixed product price results in increased profits. Whether through using less expensive materials, cheaper labour, design changes, etc., the increase in profits is the desired outcome, benefitting the owner or shareholders.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior

I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT UPT, MAKING INSINUATIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT UPT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT UPT.

This happens all the time in industry. The reason, of course, is money, which is to say, profit. The reduction of production costs with a fixed product price results in increased profits. Whether through using less expensive materials, cheaper labour, design changes, etc., the increase in profits is the desired outcome, benefitting the owner or shareholders.

I think designing testing and introducing a new product like this is actually expensive, especially on TSO'd gear. Moreover you're subjected to marketing FUD from the competition. Is ripstop & a different pattern really that much cheaper than mesh?! I think that's a stretch. IMHO Bill Booth has a passion for innovation and incremental safety improvements and has worked a range of problems over decades for this reason. Some of those save costs (ripcord).

More likely this augments UPT's leadership in innovation & safety and in that regard it's slightly redundant given their current reputation. Maybe one day they'll recoup the R&D costs.

[riggerrob 613]

Quote

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior to the one he was already shipping when he already has an unchallenged reputation for industry innovations?

.......................................................................

Sometimes the market forces changes and the manufacturer tries to satisfy customers, but end up inventing problems that were never for seen in his worst drunken nightmare, but field riggers do not always pack in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.

For example, in the late 1980s, reserves smaller than 180 square feet came into fashion. Rigging Innovations tried to downsize their Talon 1 to accommodate fashion. they managed to make Talon 1 patterns work with Raven 150, but were not 100 percent successful with 135-sized reserve containers. After a few slow reserve deployments, R.I. reviewed pilot chute spring design.
The problem was that the large reserve pilot chute cap struggled to push side flaps out of the way.
The short term solution was to replace (at R.I.'s expense) hundreds of weak pilot chute springs with stronger springs and the longer term solution was to design a smaller diameter spring (Stealth pilot chute found in Aviator, Flexon, Talon 2, Telesis 2, Telesis 3 and Voodoo).

• Quote

[pchapman 278]

========== reviving a 4 year old thread =========

The video link in Bill Booth's original post is no longer valid. I asked UPT to post the video again so they kindly did:

"Meshless pilot chute explanation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yPshlycEJI&list=UUlRzGBH3ZaWMBGeIoHNXZFg



It is good to see UPT explain their design choices for the pilot chute.
While they show video with some great launches, Vector II pilot chutes can still get caught in the burble. A few youtube videos demonstrate this:

-- a test jump I filmed of a jumper in student gear with a spring loaded main pilot chute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF3wpTqdbEU

-- a friend with a PFF (AFF) student where the pilot chute fails for a couple seconds to pull the main bag out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F1zOVlXpl4

(A reserve deployment would probably do better on average, as the much longer bridle allows a burbled PC of any type to bounce around and float further from the jumper, without having the risk being 'yanked back' by an extended but short bridle.)

-- a 3+ second burbled pilot chute on an AFF jump, I think from Johannesburg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6es6OCXhyyo


So even if it can be argued that the Vector II PC might escape better from the edges of the burble, and perhaps on average deploy a little sooner, they certainly can still get tumbled around in the burble, with their extra fabric and more balanced fabric doing little when in the middle of it. And then when fully inflated, the shape ends up being a lot lower drag than other pilot chutes. UPT goes for meshless, many go for 50/50, and a couple rigs like Infinity and Wings have something in between.

Despite all the arguments I don't think we have a clear winner among all the pros and cons to each design.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

"The problem is there is no-one or organization that is going to conduct such a study. It's expensive and the results might be negative toward manufacturers."

That is what I thought. However, the Australian Parachute Federation has apparently done just that. They did it in about the early 80's. My staff found this study in our archives in hard copy. It was missing its cover page. However, that doesn't effect the data enclosed. I have made attempts to get a complete copy but haven't heard back yet.

The study is over 100 MB in PDF form (too big to upload) as it is some 43 pages long without the cover page. I am uploading the last 2 chapters of the document which covers the conclusions. I will make the entire document available to anyone who want's it, just PM a request to me.

It was originally done to investigate pilot chutes for use on AFF students mains. However, The same performance requirements are germain for both mains and reserves. If a pilot chute is not good enough for AFF mains then how can it be acceptable for reserves?

They investigated both the launch and the drag in separate chapters then combined the data for each tested subject and made an evaluation. There were 10 pilot chutes tested most of which are in use today.
They were:
1. 357 Magnum
2. MA-1 (Lite-Flite)
3. MA-1 (1.5 OZ)
4. Talon
5. Hotdog
6. Skyhook
7. Vector MK I
8. Vector MK I1
9. MA-1 (Pioneer)
10. The Woomera (Hand Deploy) was also tested but only for drag.

I believe this to be an excellent study which shows the relative performance of the tested subjects and is comparable to other investigations. The only difficulty I have with the study is the apparent use of Ground Speed as opposed to Air Speed. This might offset the values when compared to other studies but doesn't affect the relative performance.

This is a must read for Riggers and interested parties.

[pchapman 278]

An interesting old study, which could demonstrate some general trends, although I wouldn't believe every single number.

After all, one wonders how they get 0 lbs drag for some pilot chutes at 30 mph.

Also, their Cd drag coefficient numbers jump around for each pilot chute, while it should probably stay about the same for each chute, no matter the speed within those that interest us. I believe they made a mistake in their Cd calculation. Their Cd formulas use the Area of the pilot chute rather than the Diameter. The drag and drag coefficient formulas always use a reference length, like the span of an airplane wing, or diameter of a round parachute.

So although I didn't run the numbers, I'd say just ignore their actual Cd numbers, and don't put too much emphasis on low speed drag numbers. But perhaps the drag levels measured at higher speeds like 120 mph are reasonably accurate.

The Vector II pilot chute came out as the lowest drag one tested. However it was designed with by far the strongest spring (thicker and more turns), back in an era when a lot of pilot chutes were decidedly wimpy.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

After all, one wonders how they get 0 lbs drag for some pilot chutes at 30 mph.

Maybe it didn't inflate.

Quote

The Vector II pilot chute came out as the lowest drag one tested. However it was designed with by far the strongest spring (thicker and more turns), back in an era when a lot of pilot chutes were decidedly wimpy.

The spring doesn't matter if it doesn't drag when it get into the air stream. Not only that but the launch part of the study shows no improvement over the MA-1 spring, the most common spring in service.

I disagree about the Cd. The Formula is F=Cd*So*Q. THe So is the Square feet area not the diameter. The Area of a 36 inch PC is 7.06 Sq. Ft.

I believe the Drag levels to be slightly low as compared to other studies. I think this is due to the ground speed being used instead of air speed. This would have a greater effect at the high end.

I am attaching the other half of the study with the suffix "Data Half" added to the end. Just merge the 2 documents for a complete study.

This data half is too large to attach to a PM reply.

[pchapman 278]

You are right, I brain gapped, the reference value is indeed "S", the AREA not length, when talking about the drag coefficient for a 3-D object.

(Length is appropriate when doing 2-D airfoil analysis.)

Luckily you misspoke the first time around about the file size so now the whole file is here in two parts!