jerolim 7 #1 June 24, 2017 Hi all, I am describing another DIY project here in group (yes I am bragging ). It is Harness/Container project that is finished now. I have started it in January 2017, in spare time (mostly late in evening) as project while I was preparing for master rigger (Techniker). I wanted to make new, modern looking prototype, to learn even more about gear and to have solid design/platform if I have any new ideas that I could play with. Also, it was a good test to see if sewing machines that I have purchased and repaired are ready to do all of this tasks. It was built with only 3 machines (binding machine, zig-zag + straight machine and harness machine). I have built everything expect pilot chutes and reserve ripcord (this was borrowed). It was interesting, expirience. I know reserve looks funny as I have smaller reserve at home that would actually fit into H/C, and yes reserve pilot chute is close to the riser covers but it launches normally, even with this much smaller reserve. Here are the pictures (album should be public, so everyone should be able to see it). https://www.facebook.com/jerolim.duplancic/media_set?set=a.10208668150437697.1073741841.1128815054&type=3¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic¬if_id=1498330504913103 I was super carefull regarding harness strength and container snag-points. So, riggers, master riggers, what do you think ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
accumack 13 #2 June 24, 2017 Unless you are willing to spend the money to TSO do not expect to jump it in the U.S.A. Don't know about other countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #3 June 24, 2017 Hi jerolim, Quotealbum should be public I tried twice; apparently it is not public. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #4 June 24, 2017 Hi Jim, QuoteUnless you are willing to spend the money to TSO do not expect to jump it in the U.S.A. True, for the most part. There have been some people in the USA who have obtained local field approvals for 'one-off' rigs. It is probably much more difficult now than it was 30 yrs ago. Also, if it is legal in his country, I believe that the latest FAA ruling is that he could jump it here. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,914 #5 June 24, 2017 accumackUnless you are willing to spend the money to TSO do not expect to jump it in the U.S.A. Don't know about other countries. Non TSO'd rigs are jumped by foreign visitors to your country all the time. Go to any of the big destination DZs and see for yourself. It is allowed by the FAA as long as the users are not American residents.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerolim 7 #6 June 24, 2017 Photobucket link http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/duplancic/library/?view=recent&page=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisHoward 8 #7 June 24, 2017 jerolim what do you think ? I think it's awesome that people are so interested in gear at the moment. Off the top of my head I would say: 1) You could probably sew up closer to your hardware. Your pictures make it look like you could tighten that tolerance up some. 2) I think if the reserve top flap was a separate piece to the yoke you would eliminate some of the wrinkles there. Also makes replacement easier. 3) I like the design embroidered on the back. Nice touch the way it all lines up. jerolimand yes reserve pilot chute is close to the riser covers but it launches normally, even with this much smaller reserve. I would be more worried about those extra wide riser covers delaying free bag extraction than PC launch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerolim 7 #8 June 24, 2017 QuoteI would be more worried about those extra wide riser covers delaying free bag extraction than PC launch. Actually I have tried this and measured extraction force with 2 reserves (packed main was Silhouette 170): Minimax 5 around 180 sqft, and MT 150 (predecessor of Quick 150). And extraction force for freebag was never above 8 kilos regardles of angle (0 degrees = towards jumpers head to 90 degrees = straight up). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gb1 3 #9 June 26, 2017 Jerold, you are doing wonderful stuff. Nice for a first copy. Just to look at the basic design, it appears to have the features of most of the rigs out there. Think outside the box when you get comfortable with this one. Can't wait to see your third rig from now. Remember, It doesn't take much to work and it doesn't take much to not work... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #10 June 26, 2017 Awesome design and sewing skills! A large part of parachute design is understanding design parameters, knowing when you are getting close to the edge and understanding tolerances. For example, another poster pointed out that your main riser covers are close to the edge of your reserve pilot-chute. In a worst-case scenario, wide riser-covers might delay pilot-chute launch. It would be unwise to build riser covers any wider, but narrower riser covers will never interfere with launch. This is a tolerance that is "minus zero, but plus one inch (2cm)." Keep up the good work! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RiggerLee 61 #11 June 26, 2017 I think your looking pretty good. Cool project. If nothing else you'll learn a lot. It's a little different from playing with a canopy. With a canopy most of the problems you might have the canopy is out and you can ditch it if you don't like it. This is a bit different. There are a wider list of problems you might run into and some of them have fewer fixes available to you. I'm not ragging on you but it's more serious in some ways then the people out building their own mains. You can get into trouble with little gremlins lurking in your design. TSO testing is there for a reason and the testing listed in it is really minimal. Most people actually do much more. Even then problems can hide for years before the surface or small changes that seem trivial on the surface turn out to cause problems. I'm really not sure how I feel about the feasibility of this project. You could build your self a dumby and do the functional test. a lot of them you could do live. But the high speed heavy structural test are tough. I suppose you could say that this other harness design passed so this one should be fine... It's hard for me to see you doing the level of testing that I think this project would need and even then there are still a lot of places for surprises to hide. I'll give you an example. Strong was building the Quasar 2. They had been building them for years. Then they realized that if you packed it up right the flaps could lock closed. What was happening was the edges of the binding tape on the reserve side flaps were parallel to each other. If it was packed up right and the edges were parallel when they slid over each other the edges could catch and lock closed. Years before this happened for the first time. So being Strong, they come up with there flap spring things... If was a design error. All they had to do was change the pattern set so the edges of the flaps were angled to each other. It's just an example of a gremlin that can kill you or some one else. Another example was a construction change made by Javelin to there reserve... top flap? I don't recall the exact detailes but it caused a bulge/lip on the edge of the flap and they started getting hesitations. They were talking about it a a PIA. Small thing. Trivial thing. They didn't think twice about it at the time. But it caused a problem. This doesn't even touch on every thing else that makes up a full TSO program. For example, where did you get your thread? That harness thread, where did you get it? Do you have specs on it? What lot number is it from? How are you tracking it. Say you hear about a problem. Do you have trace ability to determine if it applies to your rig? What about the hard ware. We just had that big recall. I think the rig looks awesome. I think it's a cool project. I have no doubt that you have learned a great deal. I would have to think very carefully about making this my skydiving container. Not trying to rain on your parade, just saying that it's a big project. Drawing up a design and building a nice rig is just the start. And even if your not going to sell it. Even if it's just yours. How many of those corners would you want to cut? When you get cutaway from a spinner a bit low and you pull that silver handle... do you really want that to be how you find out about a hesitation problem with your container? LeeLee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gb1 3 #12 June 26, 2017 Lee, you are absolutely right about a harness/container project being a different animal with a different set of obstacles. TSO type testing is way better than just strapping it on like in the old days. Look at it this way, if he keeps posting photos of his "baby", the manufacturers will pick it up and do the proper testing because they can afford it and are familiar with the routine. Then they will claim that they invented it with a patent. Here we go again..... That will sour him and a bright mind will quit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerolim 7 #13 June 26, 2017 RiggerLeeI think your looking pretty good. Cool project. If nothing else you'll learn a lot. It's a little different from playing with a canopy. With a canopy most of the problems you might have the canopy is out and you can ditch it if you don't like it. This is a bit different. There are a wider list of problems you might run into and some of them have fewer fixes available to you. I am very well aware of that!!! This is serious stuff !! I also belive that Harrness/Container is most important part of equipment. Main and reserve will probably open and fly well in some configuration at least. But H/C is peace of equipment that decides if main will open prematurely, will it open when you want it to (pouch too tight, pilot chute to small to inflate, pin piecing bridle, grommets locking up, etc), will cutaway system stay connected until you use it, and will it disconnect when needed (geometry, of rings, webbing elongation, size of handle pouch, housing type, cutaway excess length, etc.), will reserve open after pulling silver (snag points, extraction forces, different extraction angles, reserve pilot chute size, types of springs/coils, coil lockups, uretane coating, etc). However I am sorf of rigging maniac, when known SB are mentioned. And I tried to intergrate all known history of issues into this rig, even it doesn't look that way from my first post. I wanted this rig to not have any of already cured illnesses. Also there other things that are not in SB's but they are common sence (and I took care of it), and I am scared of some designs that are TSO certified and compleatly legal. I have even called some manufacurers about some concerns about their equipment, but common answer was "It works in the field, and numbers are confirming it", but devil is in details. We can talk privatley about each part, and why I choose such design for each part. TSO is very crude way that someting will not get ripped under some conditions. That one will not fall out simply from harder opening. It doesn't concider snag points, grommet positioning or probability of stiffener piercing trough cordura or parapack. So, TSO is shitty way of confirming that some rig is ok or not. Regarding harness - yes design is same as with others (4 point WW with box, wrapped) so breaking force should be smilar to other manufacurers. QuoteFor example, where did you get your thread? That harness thread, where did you get it? Do you have specs on it? What lot number is it from? How are you tracking it. Say you hear about a problem. Do you have trace ability to determine if it applies to your rig? What about the hard ware. We just had that big recall. I got my thread from paragear. Yes I have specs on it. And when I hear for a problem that is found in the world, I will surely try to see if it affects mine equipment as well. Hardware is also from paragear and I am aware about hardware recall that Parachute Systems had. What I really don't like in skydiving industry is when one manufacturer issues SB and other are pretending blind ,instead correcting same problem on their product as well. And that is really sad when some one of our brothers dies from well known prolem, eather from rigger who didn't implement SB, or from manufacturer who ignored known problem with own design, as it happened to somebody else's rig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerolim 7 #14 June 26, 2017 Quote This is a tolerance that is "minus zero, but plus one inch (2cm)." And I get that tollerance with bigger reserve. The one that is inside is way to small for this rig. Bigger reserve sorts this on this rig. So this rig has limitation regarding minimum alowed reserve size. Of course on next one (after I heal mentaly from this one), riser covers will be narower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #15 June 26, 2017 I think I mentioned this to you privately once, in any design, you have to think a lot about how someone not reading the manual can mis-rig the system. Oh yeah, there is the whole manual thing too... -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #16 June 27, 2017 I am very impressed. Congratulations on the very nice workscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #17 June 29, 2017 Back when I wrote manuals for Rigging Innovations, I knew that few riggers would read the entire manual from first to last page, so I made them "picture books with captions." The editor and I got into a debate about whether to include a particular picture. A couple of years later he phoned me to apologize, saying that the Canadian Army encountered problems when they ignored a line of text. Finally, I often wondered if my manuals were primarily intended to protect R.I. against lawsuits because "a rigger ignored the manufacturers' instructions."??????????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites