PEPs and C-9 canopies

[rmarshall234 13]

For you Riggers out there packing pilot rigs I'd like to hear your comments regarding the C-9 and it's place in today's market. I'm not talking about older rigs that were assembled with this canopy years ago, but brand new harness and container systems being sold today with this canopy inside. To me, it is obsolete and should be treated as such. Anything with no deployment device, a 4-line release system, and anti-inversion netting is from a bygone era. There is WAY better stuff out there now. At least that is what I think but I'd like to hear from you.

Full disclosure: I'm a dealer for Softie Parachutes

I'm not interested in sparking a product war or even discussions along those lines, I'm just interested in the relative merits of this canopy in today's world. Maybe I'm missing something. (I do have personal experience ~ 100 round parachute jumps and one ride under a Navy Conical 4-line release as well as a Strong Lopo.) However, I've never jumped a C-9.

Thoughtful comments only please but no product comparisons. Thanks in advance.

[Unstable 8]

I'm very active in servicing Pilot rigs for flyers in the Midwest and 2x wings of the Commemorative Air Force. I see quite a few C9s, mostly new (2010+) dates of manufacture.Here is a photo of a system I did just week or so ago. I have no issue with them insomuch as they are in serviceable condition. "because there are better things out there" IMHO is not justification for grounding a rig.

Quote

and anti-inversion netting is from a bygone era.

I haven't seen anti-inversion netting on a C-9, I have seen a few different configurations for the apex, but that is another discussion.

Quote

no deployment device,

It's very common to see them with quarterbags - I have a 2013 BA-22 that uses that system. That amounts to essentially a 1-locking stow Type-4 system (maybe a DPRE could correct me on that terminology) with military-style retaining loops.


Edited to add...

Quote

a 4-line release system

Again, not following you. The models I deal with all have the steering toggles anchored to the outermost lines 2 lines on the rear risers, just like a Strong or FFE canopy.

I see you have a pretty strong opinion - I'm thinking you are comparing old C9 canopies and peripheral devices with new canopies with peripheral devices. I think the C9, in the appropriate system, is a good choice for those needing something in a Standard category.

*Sorry, edited a few times to clarify a few points.

=========Shaun ==========

[likestojump 3]

Pretty much what Shawn above me said.

A few editions :

C9 can be retrofitted with a diaper.
I am not aware of LoPo, FFE or Phantom Aerostars having anti-inversion netting.

And more importantly - ParaPhernalia (Softie) and Strong both sell containers for and with C9 canopies.

[riggerrob 558]

I am agreeing with rmarshall.

I am a grumpy, old, grey-bearded master rigger who did his first jump on a C-8 back in 1977. Since then I have C-9, T-10, CT-1, three jumps on round reserves and 1.5 jumps on a Crossbow (high-performance round). I earned a couple of sets of military jump wings, but did my last jump on a round canopy in 1986.

Most warbirds need canopies that are certified for faster deployment speeds than C-9s. Yes, I know that the US Navy has proved that C-9s can survive 600 knot deployments ... but the users do not enjoy the opening shock!!!!
For deployment speeds faster than 150 knots, you really need a slider ... or more complex reefing device.

While working for Butler and Para-Phernalia, I sewed diapers onto hundreds of C-9s. They were sewn during the 1990s, so they came from the factory with 4-line release standard. For decades, C-9 was the only canopy compatible with the faster warbirds, but C-9s are obsolete compared with two new canopies specifically designed for Pilot Emergency Parachutes.

My attitude towards PEPs changed radically when I live-jumped the Precision P-124A (290 square feet) ram-air canopy that comes standard with the Aviator PEP made by Rigging Innovations. After three test-jumps, I got bored with fine tuning toggles and did a couple of landings hands-off, down-wind, in the weeds surrounding Lake Elsinore. Both those landings were softer than most of my "round" landings. The key difference was the angle of arrival. I slide, rather than pile-driving my spine.

The other modern canopy is the "HX" series introduced by Butler in 1997(?). This line of sliderized, round canopies is specifically designed for the high-speed (faster than 150 knots) warbird market. They are also available in a variety of sizes to accommodate (land softly) well-nourished", elderly warbird owners oft enough to walk away from the landing.

[rmarshall234 13]

>I'm thinking you are comparing old C9 canopies

What I am seeing is new harness and container systems but with a 16 year old (DOM) C-9 in them. No quarterbag - nor any other means to close-off the skirt during deployment.

[rmarshall234 13]

>My attitude towards PEPs changed radically when I live-jumped the Precision P-124A

I've yet to see one of these in the flesh but am very intrigued by them. Can you comment on their opening speed? Faster, slower, or about the same as a round?

[riggerrob 558]

rmarshall234

>My attitude towards PEPs changed radically when I live-jumped the Precision P-124A

I've yet to see one of these in the flesh but am very intrigued by them. Can you comment on their opening speed? Faster, slower, or about the same as a round?

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

I have only done low-speed, hop-and-pops from a slow Cessna while live-jumping P-124A 290 canopies. Openings were smooth and comfortable, slightly quicker than popular F-111, seven-cell mains (Cruislite, Strato-Cloud, etc.).

At the fast end of the scale, we dropped P-124As from a B-25 Mitchell bomber all week. The Mitchell could only fly 205 knots with the bomb-bay doors open and it did not climb above 300 feet AGL. We started with a stock rubber torso dummy, then strapped on extra lead weights at each stage of testing. We kept strapping on more and more lead ingots until we ran out lead ingots and daylight. We never tore a P-124A. All those openings were QUICK!!! They were all fully-inflated, slider down before touch-down.
Not sure if my neck would want to do more than one high-speed opening per day with P-124As.

In conclusion, I now believe that all PEPs should contain large, docile square reserves in the 200 to 300 square foot range, similar to what we loan to first (solo) jump students.

[RiggerLee 61]

I've got a slightly different opinion so I'll try to make an argument for the other side.

First I think you're confusing separate issues of canopy and container design. In this I'm going to class the deployment system as part of the container not the canopy. I justify this based on the installation of diapers and four line releases that are available for the C9. The old B12 pilot rigs are a 60 year old design and this shows. The C9 it self is also old but it's not fundamentally a bad design. In fact it has some very good qualities to it. Name a stronger canopy. Can you even imagine how you could build a stronger canopy. It's damn near impossible to blow up. And with the multiple seams in the gores from the bias construction very hard to have a catastrophic failure. With out a diaper or quarter bag it can invert in which case you can burn it all to hell but that's true of any round canopy and as Quarter bags and diapers are available and standard on all modern installations of the canopy it's not really an argument. In fact I'd argue that the quarter bag deployment system is by far the strongest high speed deployment system ever invented, past or present. I've seen other diaper designs fail on high speed deployments when the radial seam it self parted do to the acceleration or the diaper failed do to the snatch force. The diagonal Flutes on the quarter bag are by far the most secure stowage method ever conceived. The 1 inch wide tape running down the seam carries all the load for the bulk of the canopy held in the quarter bag. The locking stow is not some rubber band but actual one inch wide locking loops of type four tape. It's better then a complete D bag because 3/4 of the length of the canopy is fully extended and under tension then the quarter bag releases. It's not just dumped out of the mouth of a D bag into the high speed air with 14 foot worth of travel before there is any tension on the apex or radial seams. It's a really smart system. And since steerable for line releases have been standard on it for a long time that's not really an argument.

Are their newer designs. Yes. Are they better? Well, they are different. One thing I will say is that they are light. The one thing the C9 is truly missing is a diaper. The new designs survive on high speed drops not because they are stronger canopies but because they... cheat is too harsh a word. I'm a proponent of sliders. But the truth is that you are depending on what is fundamentally a weaker design. Do you think that it's magic that a Buttler canopy weighs half as much? It's because their is half as much canopy their. Nothing really compares to that net of continuous lines cradling the bias canopy of a C9. It's a tank.

Oh, but it opens hard. What? You just survived a 500 knt ejection and your complaining that the canopy opened hard? You unconscious. One arm was broken by the edge of the cockpit The other leg was broken just by the seat. The compression fracture in your spine was from the explosive charge the ejected the chair. And the canopy just opened 100 ft above the ground from your 400 ft ejection and your complaining about how fast the canopy opened. And do you really think the navy pilot flying off the carrier that loses on on launch wants a slower opening canopy? How high is that deck off the water again? And it's not like he's going fast. I've jumped C9's I've got one in the closet in the other room. As a crew dog and a base jumper, if your complaining about a C9, all I have to say is. PUSSIES BIG.

They land hard. That was the closest I can find but please insert the face of a crying child throwing a temper tantrum. I don't get the landing issue. Part of that is my perspective as a relatively small person. I may never get laid but I can land almost any thing. I don't see round canopies in pilot rigs as bad things. The aviator canopy may be the best square canopy built for a pilot rig but that's because your doing every thing you can to turn it into a round. All of the most desirable characteristics that make it suitable for a PEP are those that try to emulate a round canopy. And it's not small. At the point that a square is big enough to really work in a PEP you might as well have a large round of equivalent weight and volume.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

Riggerlee,

We agree on most of those points, ... so I will only belabour the points we disacree on.

Pack volume: a 290 square foot P-124A canopy packs about the same volume as a 26 Lopo (750 cubic inches). Strong Lopos are my minimum standard for PEPs.
All the round canopies certified in the low-speed category pack smaller, but who takes them seriously any more??????

I am really hoping that all those wimpy, warmed-over, light-weight, low-speed round reserve canopies sewn during the 1980s would quietly disappear.
Ooops!
Did I just sound like Manley Butler circa 1990?
Hah!
Hah!

I don't even have bromocreasol or tensile testing clamps any more.

Yes, C-9s pack larger.14 x 16 x 4 inches for a typical seat-pack.

The key advantage of P-124a over any round is the angle of arrival. For the last few million years, primates have trained to land straight down or with a bit of forward movement. Ask any old para-trooper if he hates backwards PLFS ....
Ask the tandem instructor why they quit jumping when winds reach 26 knots gusting suicidal .....

[Unstable 8]

Quote

To me, it is obsolete and should be treated as such.

Quote

There is WAY better stuff out there now.

I think these two statements are the defining points of the discussion and in many ways, have structured the excellent responses from Rob and Lee. When I think 'quality' I usually apply the definition 'fitness for use.' The existence of newer PEPs certified in the standard category does not affect the ability of the C9 to do its job, and do it well. By the logic posted above, could one refuse to pack a Javelin because of the Existence of the newer, and more 'relevant design' Javelin Odyssey.

=========Shaun ==========

[rmarshall234 13]

>I now believe that all PEPs should contain large, docile square reserves in the 200 to 300 square foot range, >similar to what we loan to first (solo) jump students.

A very interesting comment. I'm not sure I would go this far yet, but it is certainly the mind-set I have.

I just don't understand putting equipment out there in this day and age with no deployment device.

[rmarshall234 13]

"I've got a slightly different opinion so I'll try to make an argument for the other side...."

Excellent comments as well Lee, Thank you very much.

[rmarshall234 13]

>I think these two statements are the defining points of the discussion

Agreed. And an excellent discussion so far.

To be clear on one point....I'm not suggesting we refuse to pack this stuff when it comes into the loft. I just don't understand assembling a rig (with what I'm calling obsolete equipment) and sending it out the door when there are much better choices available. Much like, assembling that Javelin Odyssey with a Meyers Release System instead of Three Rings.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Robert,

Quote

I'd like to hear your comments

Well, you did ask.

IMO the C-9 is just about the strongest canopy available. I 'think' that the Navy 26 ft conical might just be stronger, but I have test data to support that.

The C-9 also meets a decent rate of descent for those 'older' pilots who have put on a pound or two; and I know that is subjective.

I build PEPs on a small scale and require a deployment device be used on any canopy that will installed.

I also hold FAA field approval to cut a 3-hole mod and install a full-stow diaper into any round canopy that has neither.

Butler is just about the only canopy mfr who makes a canopy for the 300 lb person. Those older pilots quite often hit this weight or very close to it.

About 8 yrs ago I had a long discussion with Ted Strong on PEPs with squares in them. He was very concerned about the liability as they had forward speed that the average pilot simply could not figure out how to deal with. And the major factor, in his comments, were that pilots will simply not pay the additional costs for a square canopy.

Back in '93 I had a fairly long discussion with Bill Coe of PD about using squares in PEPs; and he also was concerned about the forward speed. He had some interesting ideas on just how to get around the forward speed and stalling too high ( another liability issue ). Neither of us ( to the best of my knowledge ) went any further with those ideas.

I think it all comes down to the money; pilots search the internet for the cheapest rig that they can find. Heck, just look at the amount of questions we get on here from the newbies who have found this 'great rig at a great price.' We just had a thread about a rig with a $100 price tag and rusted hardware, from a guy with 3,000 jumps.

It would be interesting to know how many Aviators that Rigging Innovations has sold.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

Enjoying this debate ....

Jerry,
May I counter your point about "... pilots not being used to forward speed ...."?
I contend that pilots are familiar with forward speed, gliding approaches, flaring, etc.

Just the other day, I was discussing with a tandem instructor how to brief helicopter pilots for tandem jumps: "Just tell then that it is like auto-rotations. Toggles work like rudder pedals for directional control and grab a fist-full of collective just before touch-down."

Rather it is old riggers who need to be re-trained. Parachutists and balloonists are the only aviators who are comfoartable with landing backwards.

As for refusing to repack C-9s for old pilots .... HAH!
Many years ago, they learned that the best airplanes were built for the United states Air Force, the best engines were radial engines, the best wheels were tail wheels, the best instruments were round and the best parachutes were round and don't waste your time trying to tell them anything new.

The scary part is young riggers and young skydiving instructors trying to teach pilots how to use round PEPS when those young jumpers have never seen a round main because round mains disappeared form North American DZs 25 years ago (circa 1990).

How can they pretend to teach something they have never seen in operation?

... Yes, I know that I ask embarrassing questions ....

[dpreguy 14]

Pilots, fully trained, maybe OK - I get your point, (but do not agree), but definitely do not agree that ALL pilot emergency rigs be ram air parachutes; as you are forgetting that many airplanes have passengers wearing parachutes too. Briefing or not, it is a distinct possibility, or even probability, the passenger will release one toggle and spiral down to the earth and have a violent impact. "What's this yellow loop for?...". What did my pilot tell me?...Ram air emergency canopies are for those who know something about flight, and have the presence of mind to either leave the toggles unstowed or to be sure to release both of them. And be trained, not just briefed.

Any pilot who puts a ram air canopy rig on a non-aviation oriented passenger, in my opinion, would be irresponsible. The likelihood of a one side release is very high for a non- aviation passenger. The pilot can have whatever parachute he wants; but in my opinion, the passenger who doesn't know a parachute from a beach umbrella should only be wearing a parachute with a round canopy.

And, please don't pretend a briefing will cure this.
Briefing: "Whatever you do, don't just release just one of the yellow toggles, always release both of them".... etc. Passenger nods and then thinks,"What's a toggle"...."pull the yellow toggles" yadda yadda, but will be just a likely to forget this half ass briefing, (probably one minute while the engine is running), and end up pulling/releasing one of them. And even would do so after a long briefing because it is still very likely that a clueless passenger will release one side and then be overwhelmed by the G's, and either fail or forget to release the other side or will be slumped down into the harness so far they couldn't reach the other toggle, even if they wanted too.

Round parachute? No problem, as once a round parachute starts making the passenger feel G's, the instinct would be to let it go.

In my opinion, passengers with ram airs should be a no no.

[mark 102]

dpreguy, are you familiar with the steering system on the Aviator?

-Mark

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

Quote

are you familiar with the steering system on the Aviator?

I know that I am not. Can you inform us?

Jerry Baumchen

[dpreguy 14]

Looked closely at it at PIA 4 yrs ago with a packing demo by Margaret. Two toggles. Length of travel limited by type IV webbing...etc. Not a clear memory.

Grace us with a picture.

I occasionally pack the other ram air emergency rigs -Parapernalia and Butler. I wouldn't put one on a "just up for a ride" passenger.

[rmarshall234 13]

Thank you Jerry.

So if I could summarize the comments and create a list of positive and negative traits of the C9, it would look something like this..

Postitives:

It is STRONG
Decent rate of descent
Low cost

Negatives:

Heavy
Bulky
Snag prone (in the configuration I'm seeing them)
May require modification to add deployment device
4-line Release System
Opens hard
Lands hard

I suppose some of the items in the negative column are open for discussion. However, in the positive column I would consider item #2 to be a "push". Neither pos or neg. And as for low cost, when it comes to emergency parachutes IMHO you buy the best you can afford. If that means purchasing used instead of new, than so be it.

It's been a great discussion everybody, thanks for sharing your knowledge. I'm not sure my mind has been changed at all, but I will say I have a greater appreciation for how strong the canopy is and therefore more suitable to those "big boys" out there.

[mark 102]

Sorry, don't have a good photo immediately available.

RI Aviator canopy "E" lines cascade together like conventional brake lines, then run as a single line on each side, fingertrapped on the rear links.

A control line is fingertrapped into the "E" line on each side, about 15" above links, which allows about 30" of travel.

That's it. No brakes to set or release.

Mark

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

Quote

Aviator canopy "E" lines . . . fingertrapped on the rear links.

Quote

No brakes to set or release.

Does it open in full flight or is it configured with some brakes on when packed, in full flight, etc? I'm just curious.

Thanks for the detailed explanation,

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Robert,

Quote

Thank you Jerry.

You are most welcome.

These types of discussions are really great. Everybody gets to offer their opinions, present some facts, and everyone learns. And, hopefully, people can make informed decisions.

What more could you ask for?



Jerry Baumchen

PS) Can you just imagine all of us at a table in a seminar at the Symposium? It would go on for days.

[mark 102]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Mark,

Quote

Aviator canopy "E" lines . . . fingertrapped on the rear links.

***No brakes to set or release.

Does it open in full flight or is it configured with some brakes on when packed, in full flight, etc?

No brakes. When packed it is in the "fast as it goes" configuration. I don't recall whether it might go faster if the "E" lines could be released from the links.

-Mark

[Unstable 8]

Quote

It is STRONG
Decent rate of descent
Low cost

Negatives:

Heavy
Bulky
Snag prone (in the configuration I'm seeing them)
May require modification to add deployment device
4-line Release System
Opens hard
Lands hard

I am loving this discussion - I was just on the phone to Nancy @ Jumpshack, picking her brain about recommended starting points for PEP canopies for various pilots, and this thread is going to answer most of my questions.

The items above in italics are those I believe a reasonable person could disagree upon.

Low Cost - NEW production C-9's are notoriously hard to get ahold of, and would usually require an intermediary as the government contracts they are manufactured to are very specific regarding distribution controls. The Commemorative Air Force wing I rig for has a number of 2013 C-9s in Strong 304s, and Looking through their receipts, they paid about $1500 for the canopies alone. You could get a FFE Preserve or Strong Lopo for ~$800.

4 Line release The C-9s I usually inspect have a more modern assembly, with steering toggles anchored to the outboard 2-lines on the rear riser assemblies. However, without steering vents, I would question their effectiveness.

Here is something I debate with myself on a regular basis: Which is more appropriate for an Aerobatic pilot with no jumping experience: Round or square? Are pilots who are experienced enough to fly complicated maneuvers competent to land a gliding PEP without going through a first-jump type training? At what point does the risk of increased decent rate (round) balance that of increased forward speed?

=========Shaun ==========