DB Cooper

[Robert99 37]

Amazon

I am pretty sure that of the numerous varieties of round canopies I have jumped... and I have many hundreds of round jumps on dozens of types... ALLL of them "squib".. I am sure anyone who has actually sat back and watched their canopy open above them saw the same things I saw... I was fascinated by the process.. and watched it many many times.

As far as speed of deployment... ratings go out the window in jets... and a hell of a lot of guys lived since 1949 I think it was when they started equipping jets with ejection seats that tossed pilots out into air that was moving past them faster than those "rated" speeds.
The parachute manufacturers tended to overbuild military canopies... and MAN am I glad they did.

Okay. So you are claiming that ALLL canopies "squib" when opening. Even standard low speed emergency parachutes during a routine opening.

What do you call those parachutes, which seems to include most if not all rectangular canopies, that have a cloth device that starts out in the opening sequence up close to the canopy and then slides down some lines to the risers as the parachute inflates?

Unless you correct my assumptions, I am going to assume that the purpose of such devices is to prevent the canopy from opening to rapidly and to spread the actual opening over several seconds. That reduces the opening shock on both the parachute and the parachutist. I have always seen things like that referred to as "squibbing".

Standard low speed emergency parachutes do not have any such devices. In fact, since Cooper was using an emergency parachute that was set up for an acrobatic pilot, who would probably be at relatively low speed and altitude when he had to depart his flying machine, the logical thing to do would be to add an industrial strength spring to his pilot chute, a good kicker plate, etc.. That would get the canopy out into the wind and open as fast as possible. He could deal with the opening jolt damage to his anatomy later.

As pointed out in some of the videos you linked, after an ejection at high speed, the human body slows down fast. In one particular video, it was stated that after a level-flight ejection at some speed which I don't remember, the free-falling pilot would slow to 160 MPH (Knots?) in about 3 seconds. Which is why, if the pilot has the altitude to slow down, he will be doing well less than 200 MPH when his parachute (automatically) deploys.

So if Cooper pulled the ripcord while still on the stairs, he would be deploying the canopy at 225 MPH and there would be NO "squibbing", as I have used the term here. That canopy will inflate as fast as possible. Period.

Robert99

[377 20]

R99 wrote:

Quote

So if Cooper pulled the ripcord while still on the stairs, he would be deploying the canopy at 225 MPH and there would be NO "squibbing", as I have used the term here. That canopy will inflate as fast as possible. Period.

Nope. That's what I initially thought until I watched the Thailand 727 jump video. The slow inflation of those canopies surprised me. I thought the openings would be slammers. They certainly were not.

"Squidding", as I understand it, refers to the shape of the inflating canopy which resembles a squid with the suspension lines as tentacles. A fully open round canopy resembles a jellyfish not a squid.

The Thailand canopies had no special gear to make them squid. They just did. Those Thailand 727 jumpers didn't have slammers. In fact, their "squidding" openings look pretty gentle to me.

I've never seen or even heard of a 26 Conical or a C9 failing structurally unless it was UV damaged. They are both built very very strongly. I would bet the farm that either could easily withstand Coopers exit and deployment with zero damage. And yes, I do understand that the energy dissipated in deployment goes up as the square of velocity. These canopies were just way overbuilt. The civilian sport and emergency canopies weren't built nearly as robustly.

You agree Amazon?

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Amazon 7]

Robert99

***I am pretty sure that of the numerous varieties of round canopies I have jumped... and I have many hundreds of round jumps on dozens of types... ALLL of them "squib".. I am sure anyone who has actually sat back and watched their canopy open above them saw the same things I saw... I was fascinated by the process.. and watched it many many times.

As far as speed of deployment... ratings go out the window in jets... and a hell of a lot of guys lived since 1949 I think it was when they started equipping jets with ejection seats that tossed pilots out into air that was moving past them faster than those "rated" speeds.
The parachute manufacturers tended to overbuild military canopies... and MAN am I glad they did.

Okay. So you are claiming that ALLL canopies "squib" when opening. Even standard low speed emergency parachutes during a routine opening.

What do you call those parachutes, which seems to include most if not all rectangular canopies, that have a cloth device that starts out in the opening sequence up close to the canopy and then slides down some lines to the risers as the parachute inflates?

Unless you correct my assumptions, I am going to assume that the purpose of such devices is to prevent the canopy from opening to rapidly and to spread the actual opening over several seconds. That reduces the opening shock on both the parachute and the parachutist. I have always seen things like that referred to as "squibbing".

Standard low speed emergency parachutes do not have any such devices. In fact, since Cooper was using an emergency parachute that was set up for an acrobatic pilot, who would probably be at relatively low speed and altitude when he had to depart his flying machine, the logical thing to do would be to add an industrial strength spring to his pilot chute, a good kicker plate, etc.. That would get the canopy out into the wind and open as fast as possible. He could deal with the opening jolt damage to his anatomy later.

As pointed out in some of the videos you linked, after an ejection at high speed, the human body slows down fast. In one particular video, it was stated that after a level-flight ejection at some speed which I don't remember, the free-falling pilot would slow to 160 MPH (Knots?) in about 3 seconds. Which is why, if the pilot has the altitude to slow down, he will be doing well less than 200 MPH when his parachute (automatically) deploys.

So if Cooper pulled the ripcord while still on the stairs, he would be deploying the canopy at 225 MPH and there would be NO "squibbing", as I have used the term here. That canopy will inflate as fast as possible. Period.

Robert99

Please do not be obtuse.. you were talking about round canopies I was talking about round canopies... Cossey supplied round canopies.... Cooper jumped a round canopy.

The device to slow down and retard openings on "Rectangular" canopies are called diapers, sliders, spider sliders or even older.. the Ropes and Rings originally used on the very earliest parafoils and the later strato stars that were just being tested at Wright Patt in 1971.

The SQUIBBING is the round canopy opening from the TOP DOWN.... first it streams out of the container... you get line stretch and it starts to catch air it does not just BAM ... explode open. As it gets more air flowing up the skirt and eventually has enough air inside to extend the top out into the airstream( slowing the jumper down) into a ball that grows till it expands the skirt outward and to finally pop open.. at that point it "breathes" and does interesting things to you while you are under all of this watching.
The whole point of the canopy opening that way is it is slowing you down and a good math geek could do the math for you ... perhaps Professor John Kallend could help you out with the physics... since you and Jerry do not want to listen to lowly skydivers that just have direct observations. UnPeriod

[Robert99 37]

Amazon

Please do not be obtuse.. you were talking about round canopies I was talking about round canopies... Cossey supplied round canopies.... Cooper jumped a round canopy.

The device to slow down and retard openings on "Rectangular" canopies are called diapers, sliders, spider sliders or even older.. the Ropes and Rings originally used on the very earliest parafoils and the later strato stars that were just being tested at Wright Patt in 1971.

The SQUIBBING is the round canopy opening from the TOP DOWN.... first it streams out of the container... you get line stretch and it starts to catch air it does not just BAM ... explode open. As it gets more air flowing up the skirt and eventually has enough air inside to extend the top out into the airstream( slowing the jumper down) into a ball that grows till it expands the skirt outward and to finally pop open.. at that point it "breathes" and does interesting things to you while you are under all of this watching.
The whole point of the canopy opening that way is it is slowing you down and a good math geek could do the math for you ... perhaps Professor John Kallend could help you out with the physics... since you and Jerry do not want to listen to lowly skydivers that just have direct observations. UnPeriod

Amazon and 377, using your definition of "squibbing" then I can only say that EVER round canopy I have seen open "squibbed", WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS which I will get to momentarily. As 377 used the term in the SEA jumps, I got the impression that he was referring to some delaying device on the canopy itself and not to just an ever day parachute opening.

An exception to the above, is one particular zero-zero ejection seat parachute concept that went through at least the dummy ground test stage in the very early days of such seat development (more 50+ years ago). With this design, as soon as the pilot was released from the seat, a mortar fired to stream a drogue chute and the main canopy out behind the pilot. The main canopy skirt was attached to still another ballistic gadget of one kind or another which, at its appointed time, fired laterally (relative to the shroud lines) to completely spread out the canopy.

Thus this canopy may be considered as opening, or "squibbing", from the skirt of the canopy to the apex while normal "squibbing" or opening would be from the apex to the skirt.

I trust that we agree that we have not discussed "reefing" here or previously.

Who is Professor John Kallend? Was he at ND? I can't place the name.

Who was testing strato stars at WP in 1971 and where were they doing the testing? I have seen "normal" military parachute jumping in the area of the lake that you managed to pollute, but everything was round.

And stop jumping to conclusions about people's motives. Otherwise, join the broad jump competition for the next Summer Olympic games.

Re-period.

Robert99

[377 20]

Kallend: http://mypages.iit.edu/~kallend/

Jumped with him on a few WFFC loads. Nice guy and very smart. Kallend remembers ALL the math and science I forgot. Snowmman does as well.

Bruce doesn't need the old school math and science as he transcends it. I like Bruce. We just disagree about gravity, conservation of energy and few other basics.

Bruce writes well and if I hadn't been thoroughly brainwashed in engineering school I'd think that I could eventually stop paying for jump tickets and meet my load at 14K without using an aircraft.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[377 20]

Amazon wrote

Quote

The SQUIBBING is the round canopy opening from the TOP DOWN.... first it streams out of the container... you get line stretch and it starts to catch air it does not just BAM ... explode open. As it gets more air flowing up the skirt and eventually has enough air inside to extend the top out into the airstream( slowing the jumper down) into a ball that grows till it expands the skirt outward and to finally pop open.. at that point it "breathes" and does interesting things to you while you are under all of this watching.

Those old round canopies had soul. They were like animals. You watched them surge and squirm as they inflated and took their first full breath as sun streamed through the colored panels lighting them up like stained glass windows. Then, peaceful quiet.

It's just not the same watching a square inflate. It's rip roaring chaos as they deploy and then it's a noisy flapping fast forward as you steer them home. No church window visual effects, those double surfaces just don't light up much.

Its easy to get all misty and sentimental about an orange and white candy striped C9 with a 7TU mod but I sure don't miss those bone crunching landings.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[377 20]

How NASA defined squidding in describing a Mars Lander parachute problem:

Quote

Adventure with the Parachutes

Unfortunately, these modifications also made the parachutes bigger, which meant they wouldn't fit inside the fixed-volume parachute canisters on the spacecraft. When the team built and tested smaller chutes in a wind tunnel at NASA's Ames Research Center, the chutes failed to open. Instead, the chutes fluttered in mid-air in a phenomenon known as "squidding" – reminiscent of the fluttering of a squid's fins as it swims through water.

(emphasis added)

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/20040826.html

Not even Red Bull could afford to sponsor a Mars skydive.

Some day it will be done, but not in my time.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[BruceSmith 3]

Quote

"...Bruce doesn't need the old school math and science as he transcends it. I like Bruce. We just disagree about gravity, conservation of energy and few other basics.

Bruce writes well and if I hadn't been thoroughly brainwashed in engineering school I'd think that I could eventually stop paying for jump tickets and meet my load at 14K without using an aircraft.

377

Three-Seven-Seven, I have never thought you were brainwashed, only conditioned by the social and cultural practices of our day.

But, if you get to 14K, let me know asap. The only other folks I know who are levitating these days are the frog-hopping "Yogic Flyers" at the Maharishi's place down the street from G-1, aka, "He Whose Name Can Not Be Mentioned."

Speaking of gravity, isn't this kerfuffle about parachute strength, jet speeds, etc a bit misplaced? Isn't gravity the trump card here?

Isn't the real issue how fast DB Cooper was moving through space (and time) when he deployed his parachute?

Presumably, his relative motion through space was established initially by the speed of the jet (Einstein has proven that DB Cooper would also be moving at 225 mph when he exited), but his speed thereafter would be diminished by the forces of friction, air turbulence, and his eventual transition to terminal velocity.

Hence, DB Cooper was traveling about 110 mph once gravity took over, unless he was in a tuck and zooming to the ground like Robb Heady, who estimates that he was traveling about 200 mph when he pulled at 1,000 feet above the ground.

[BruceSmith 3]

Yes, folks, an apology.

I know they are rare here at the DZ, but I need to offer one:

I feel I have muddied the waters about deploying off the aft stairs. I have called it "squibbing," but the proper term may be "squidding." I apologize.

Three-Seven-Seven has corrected me on this mistake several times already in my DB Cooper tutorial program, but I still seem to be making the error.

Further, are others making the same mistake? I see that Robert-Ninety-Nine and Miss Amazona are also talking about squibbing.

So, are there two different types of parachute dynamics - squibbing and squidding?

Mark!! Help.....

Or is this a manifestation of the phenomenon known as "Mirror Matter?" Supersymmetry requires all matter to be balanced, as "b's" balance "d's," hence the development of the notion of mirror matter to compliment ordinary matter. The interaction of Mirror Matter with ordinary matter is hypothesized for causing the Tunguska explosion of 1906 in Siberia. I wrote about it in my book on consciousness, soon to be posted at the Mountain News and available on Kindle via Amazon (where else, Jeanne!) .

[377 20]

As far as I know Bruce there is just squidding and not squibbing, but I am not a parachute lexicographer, just an old jumper. Will be jumping Sunday. Getting pretty close to half a century in skydiving. First jump 1968, when dinosaurs roamed the DZ. The thrill NEVER wears off. It's a heart stopper every time.

You are getting pretty good at classical physics Bruce. The 727 exiting jumper speed explanation was OK with Newton.

Don't get sidetracked by false prophets. This old saying applies to physics as well as investments: if it seems to good to be true it probably is.

Nobody is levitating. Hopping is not levitating.

You'll love this one Bruce, but I and Snowmman remain very skeptical that it is a real phenomena. I bet Georger wont be investing in this technology either.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187346-nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum-space-engine-and-it-actually-works

Bruce wrote (about squidding and squibbing)

Quote

Or is this a manifestation of the phenomenon known as "Mirror Matter?" Supersymmetry requires all matter to be balanced, as "b's" balance "d's," hence the development of the notion of mirror matter to compliment ordinary matter.

Good one Bruce. Glad we can have some laughs about all of this stuff.

BTW Tunguska was, IMO, just a meteor. Not a UFO, not antimatter. I'd greatly prefer an unconventional explanation for the incredible destruction but the evidence just doesn't support it

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[BruceSmith 3]

377

As far as I know Bruce there is just squidding and not squibbing, but I am not a parachute lexicographer, just an old jumper. Will be jumping Sunday. Getting pretty close to half a century in skydiving. First jump 1968, when dinosaurs roamed the DZ. The thrill NEVER wears off. It's a heart stopper every time.

You are getting pretty good at classical physics Bruce. The 727 exiting jumper speed explanation was OK with Newton.

Don't get sidetracked by false prophets. This old saying applies to physics as well as investments: if it seems to good to be true it probably is.

Nobody is levitating. Hopping is not levitating.

You'll love this one Bruce, but I and Snowmman remain very skeptical that it is a real phenomena. I bet Georger wont be investing in this technology either.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187346-nasa-tests-impossible-no-fuel-quantum-space-engine-and-it-actually-works

Bruce wrote (about squidding and squibbing)

Quote

Or is this a manifestation of the phenomenon known as "Mirror Matter?" Supersymmetry requires all matter to be balanced, as "b's" balance "d's," hence the development of the notion of mirror matter to compliment ordinary matter.

Good one Bruce. Glad we can have some laughs about all of this stuff.

BTW Tunguska was, IMO, just a meteor. Not a UFO, not antimatter. I'd greatly prefer an unconventional explanation for the incredible deconstruction but the evidence just doesn't support it

377

I've heard a little about those quantum vacuum thrust drivers. I'm a little skeptical, too, but the reports are intriguing.

I spent quite a bit of time researching anti-gravity technology back in the day. Much of it was a dead-end, but some stuff was a real eye-opener, such as the "lifters." I also enjoyed talking to some of the researchers, such as Eugene Podkletnov in Finland and his rotating superconductors.

Along those lines, I highly recommend Nick Cook's book: The Hunt for Zero Point - Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology.

Nick is the aviation editor for Jane's Defence Weekly, and is nobody's fool. Very well-written and well-researched.

[BruceSmith 3]

Quote

"...BTW Tunguska was, IMO, just a meteor. Not a UFO, not antimatter. I'd greatly prefer an unconventional explanation for the incredible deconstruction but the evidence just doesn't support it..."

Yes, well, what is the evidence? I have read in multiple places that there is no evidence, at least of a meteorological impact. There are no bits and pieces of meteors. Plus, the entirety of the blast area indicates that there were multiple blasts, and all of them were aerial in nature. Nothing had direct contact with the ground except the blast waves and heat, which was extreme - searing heat 70 miles away. That's pretty hotsy-totsy.

[BruceSmith 3]

I have a proposal on parachute lexicography.

I say that "squibbing" is the dynamic that a parachute displays when it deploys, such as "squidding" like a squid or snapping open in a more muscular, explosive fashion.

Hence, old canopies can squib like stained-glass church windows - squidding like they are made of ethereal rip-stop squid fins, but rectangular speed jobs squib like bricks until landing, when they are as gentle as a mother's kiss.

Can I get an "AMEN" from all you jumpers out there?

[BruceSmith 3]

For reasons that are not clear to me at all, I have begun thinking about skydiving - not me personally, but who are the people who actually sky dive.

Three-Seven-Seven is about to celebrate his 50th Anniversary, and I can not fathom getting any joy out of cheating death, especially when my therapist works so hard to keep me, well, not a "danger to myself or others."

For instance -

- Did Robin Williams skydive?
- Does Woody Allen skydive? If so, does he take his wife/daughter with him?
- Do psychotherapists skydive? If so, are they also on medication?
- Do skydivers take medications as prescribed, or do they withhold the final word on dose and type of pharmaceuticals that they ingest?

[Robert99 37]

BruceSmith

Quote

"...BTW Tunguska was, IMO, just a meteor. Not a UFO, not antimatter. I'd greatly prefer an unconventional explanation for the incredible deconstruction but the evidence just doesn't support it..."

Yes, well, what is the evidence? I have read in multiple places that there is no evidence, at least of a meteorological impact. There are no bits and pieces of meteors. Plus, the entirety of the blast area indicates that there were multiple blasts, and all of them were aerial in nature. Nothing had direct contact with the ground except the blast waves and heat, which was extreme - searing heat 70 miles away. That's pretty hotsy-totsy.

Bruce, hold on here. Remember that Tunguska wasn't even investigated (no researcher went there) until a decade or two after the event.

There is evidence of a single central point indicating a single aerial explosion. The trees at the central point were still standing (with indications of some burning) while the trees surrounding the central point were blown down radially outward with respect to the central point.

There has been some speculation in recent years that a relatively small solid portion of whatever it was survived and is what caused a small lake near the central point.

Bruce, I have a couple of questions about anti-gravity and anti-matter.

What meaningful purpose would an anti-gravity machine(?) serve? If gravity is neutralized, how do you manage to stay on the earth, or in your chair for that matter?

Some time back, there was a UFO type that claimed such things used anti-matter for fuel. If matter and anti-matter eliminate each other on contact, what material are you going to use for the UFO fuel tank?

Solve the fuel tank problem and you will be named "Engineer of the Century" and have a very bright future.

Robert99

[BruceSmith 3]

Quote

"...Bruce, hold on here. Remember that Tunguska wasn't even investigated (no researcher went there) until a decade or two after the event.

There is evidence of a single central point indicating a single aerial explosion. The trees at the central point were still standing (with indications of some burning) while the trees surrounding the central point were blown down radially outward with respect to the central point.

There has been some speculation in recent years that a relatively small solid portion of whatever it was survived and is what caused a small lake near the central point.

Bruce, I have a couple of questions about anti-gravity and anti-matter.

What meaningful purpose would an anti-gravity machine(?) serve? If gravity is neutralized, how do you manage to stay on the earth, or in your chair for that matter?

Some time back, there was a UFO type that claimed such things used anti-matter for fuel. If matter and anti-matter eliminate each other on contact, what material are you going to use for the UFO fuel tank?

Solve the fuel tank problem and you will be named "Engineer of the Century" and have a very bright future.

Robert99

Yes, Robert, the Tunguska event wasn't investigated for many years due to WWI and it's extreme remoteness. The "world" didn't know about it until many years after the occurrence.

Nevertheless, many things can be determined about the event. You have mentioned some of the high points, but the latest that I have read indicates that smaller, localized explosions occurred after the central Big One.

I think there is general concurrence that Tunguska was not a hit by a meteor, either a direct hit or an exploding meteor that blew apart just above the surface of the earth. I think even the National Geographic is claiming that, at this point. No meteors or pieces have ever been found, anywhere.

So, what was it? Mirror Matter? Anti-Matter? Dark Matter gettin' funky for unknown reasons? I don't know, but "conventional" explanations do not seem to fit the bill.

As for anti-gravity. I can send you my magazine article on the subject, which goes into detail on the science and applications. In the meantime, NASA is spending the Big Bucks on Breakthrough Physics Propulsion systems to get its payloads into space at a cheaper cost fuel-wise.

Podkletnov's rotating superconductors were thought to be a way to shed about 5% of the weight of an Atlas V, but it didn't work out.

Eugene is now said to be working up the road at Boeing, in Renton, at the secret lab there, etc., on developing ways to lighten the effective weight of aircraft. Lighter airplanes mean less fuel, further range, bigger payloads, more bombs, etc.

The B-2 is widely speculated to be using electrostatic, anti-gravitic enhancements to fly, such as polarizing the electrical environment of the skin of the craft so that it flies through an ionized air faster, thus needing a smaller engine and being able to fly further. I have seen many reports that say the B-2 can not fly at the altitude and range with the bomb load it has with the engine as it is spec'd in public news releases. B-2 pilots have been queried on the subject and they say they know nothing, so I believe that the electrostatic qualities of the craft are hard-wired into the craft and the pilots don't have to know about it to fly the plane.

Here's how one electrostatic system may work:

Electrically charge the plane so that it is polarized. Let's say the front is negatively charged and the aft portion is positive. Then install an energizing device so that the air around the plane, especially in front, is similarly energized, but make the air in front of the plane positive. Hence. the positively charged air particles will rush faster towards the negatively charged skin of the aircraft, thus providing "free" thrust.

NASA's Deep Space I vehicle uses this exact technology to achieve impressive results.

As for Anti-Matter, and building an anti-matter fuel tank, I don't have a clue. I suspect the aircraft of the future will have containment field capacities, such as utilizing plasma fields and rotating electromagnetic fields to contain hotsy-totsy stuff, as the Helicity Injected Torus II at the UW in Seattle demonstrates so ably.

I wrote about this technology in NEXUS magazine in October 2003, and was invited to STAIF in 2004 to present my paper. If you'd like a copy, I'd be happy to send one to you.

[Robert99 37]

Bruce, Let me take leave of these matters and say only that when push comes to shove, I will be on the same side of the fence as 377 and Snowmman.

Robert99

[BruceSmith 3]

Robert99

Bruce, Let me take leave of these matters and say only that when push comes to shove, I will be on the same side of the fence as 377 and Snowmman.

Robert99

But Robert, I am also working on Bi-Location, so I can comfortably stay on my side of the fence AND also be on your side of the fence at the same time so that I can drink 377's wine. I wouldn't want to miss that just because of a few scientific quibbles....

[BruceSmith 3]

RobertMBlevins

Tunguska was probably an incoming meteor that superheated just before it reached the ground and exploded with massive force.

We had a smaller version of one here in the Seattle area ten years ago. It lit up my office in a blue-white light and I ran to the window to see it streaking across the sky. Made this loud boom, and more than once. That one was probably the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. The one in Russia was most likely quite a bit larger. Sometimes they hit the ground, sometimes they get so hot they explode BEFORE they hit the ground.

KOMO News article HERE.

That was the leading theory for decades, but is not longer supported by the evidence. You are correct, mini-Tunguskas have been reported all over the planet, and the Big Question remains - what are they?

The next big one after Tunguska was in Jordan, just a few years ago. I hadn't heard about the Seattle one.

[Amazon 7]

Robert99

***Please do not be obtuse.. you were talking about round canopies I was talking about round canopies... Cossey supplied round canopies.... Cooper jumped a round canopy.

The device to slow down and retard openings on "Rectangular" canopies are called diapers, sliders, spider sliders or even older.. the Ropes and Rings originally used on the very earliest parafoils and the later strato stars that were just being tested at Wright Patt in 1971.

The SQUIBBING is the round canopy opening from the TOP DOWN.... first it streams out of the container... you get line stretch and it starts to catch air it does not just BAM ... explode open. As it gets more air flowing up the skirt and eventually has enough air inside to extend the top out into the airstream( slowing the jumper down) into a ball that grows till it expands the skirt outward and to finally pop open.. at that point it "breathes" and does interesting things to you while you are under all of this watching.
The whole point of the canopy opening that way is it is slowing you down and a good math geek could do the math for you ... perhaps Professor John Kallend could help you out with the physics... since you and Jerry do not want to listen to lowly skydivers that just have direct observations. UnPeriod

Amazon and 377, using your definition of "squibbing" then I can only say that EVER round canopy I have seen open "squibbed", WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS which I will get to momentarily. As 377 used the term in the SEA jumps, I got the impression that he was referring to some delaying device on the canopy itself and not to just an ever day parachute opening.

An exception to the above, is one particular zero-zero ejection seat parachute concept that went through at least the dummy ground test stage in the very early days of such seat development (more 50+ years ago). With this design, as soon as the pilot was released from the seat, a mortar fired to stream a drogue chute and the main canopy out behind the pilot. The main canopy skirt was attached to still another ballistic gadget of one kind or another which, at its appointed time, fired laterally (relative to the shroud lines) to completely spread out the canopy.

Thus this canopy may be considered as opening, or "squibbing", from the skirt of the canopy to the apex while normal "squibbing" or opening would be from the apex to the skirt.

I trust that we agree that we have not discussed "reefing" here or previously.

Who is Professor John Kallend? Was he at ND? I can't place the name.

Who was testing strato stars at WP in 1971 and where were they doing the testing? I have seen "normal" military parachute jumping in the area of the lake that you managed to pollute, but everything was round.

And stop jumping to conclusions about people's motives. Otherwise, join the broad jump competition for the next Summer Olympic games.

Re-period.

Robert99

They were testing the Jalbert Parafoil at WP If memory serves it was the first.... with the ropes and rings...
I was jumping Strtostar in 1976 with ropes and rings.. I was trying convey that I owned both types... and jumped them.. I hated my Foil.. I constantly blew the steering lines off of it.. I did get very accomplished at landing on rear riser flares...

[BruceSmith 3]

RobertMBlevins

NASA/JPL says meteor:

Quote

'A century later some still debate the cause and come up with different scenarios that could have caused the explosion," said Yeomans. "But the generally agreed upon theory is that on the morning of June 30, 1908, a large space rock, about 120 feet across, entered the atmosphere of Siberia and then detonated in the sky."

It is estimated the asteroid entered Earth's atmosphere traveling at a speed of about 33,500 miles per hour. During its quick plunge, the 220-million-pound space rock heated the air surrounding it to 44,500 degrees Fahrenheit. At 7:17 a.m. (local Siberia time), at a height of about 28,000 feet, the combination of pressure and heat caused the asteroid to fragment and annihilate itself, producing a fireball and releasing energy equivalent to about 185 Hiroshima bombs.

"That is why there is no impact crater," said Yeomans. "The great majority of the asteroid is consumed in the explosion."

Yeomans and his colleagues at JPL's Near-Earth Object Office are tasked with plotting the orbits of present-day comets and asteroids that cross Earth's path, and could be potentially hazardous to our planet. Yeomans estimates that, on average, a Tunguska-sized asteroid will enter Earth's atmosphere once every 300 years...'

45,000 degrees Fahrenheit is pretty damn hot. Roughly, that is TEN times the temperature of the surface of the sun, (or the photosphere of the sun more or less.) That kind of superheating can cause a meteor to explode with extreme force and release massive amounts of energy. One of the few witnesses to Tunguska said he was thrown off his chair on his porch and his shirt got so hot he thought it was on fire. He was forty miles away.

Well...it was either a meteor or the aliens were doing nuclear testing again.

It's a neat, concise story. But is it true?

Your scenario begs a few questions:

1. What was so special about the Tunguska " meteor" that it superheated and exploded? Just its size and weight?

2. Do all 225-million ton asteroids do the Tunguska dance?

3. Do smaller asteroids cause smaller Tunguska events?

4. If so, why do some meteors explode and others just crater.

For instance the crater that was formed off the Yucatan that is hundreds of miles in diameter is thought to have ended the Age of Dinosaurs by kicking so much dust up into the air that it caused a massive die-off. Why didn't this asteroid explode like the one in Tunguska?

Ya know, the Tunguska event is a lot like DB Cooper - no physical evidence was left behind - apparently all the itsy-bitsy pieces of Meteor Matter vaporized in the 44,000 degree heat wave. Wow, friction caused all that heat? Ten times hotter than the sun, which is cookin' with nuke juice? Hmmmmmm.

Reminds me of the G-Man who said in Ariel, "We didn't even find so much as a belt buckle."

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

If Cooper discovered that either the reserve was bogus, or couldn't be attached anyway, you have to figure he might take the safer route and try pulling off the end of the stairs. That lack of a reserve is a key point. Would you really trust going down those stairs and then just leap off the end without a reserve? I'm not a skydiver, but I wouldn't try that one in a million years. I'm going to see if the damn thing opens first. This idea might apply even more if Cooper figured out the reserve was a trainer. If he figured it out at some point, that means he knows the FBI gave him a non-working chute. He has no way of knowing whether it was an accident, or they did it on purpose. This might make him decide to pull on the stairs, just to make sure they hadn't given him another bad chute.

I have never understood the chute thing - 2 chutes left on the plane one was a front chut and the other was a back chute.

Cooper knew the front chute was a dummy - to me it appears very easy to open it and discard the content and then put part of his bounty in it. Yea it was laced and mark supposedly but if he had been someone who packed chutes - he would know that - is that why he cut cord from the other chute.
Supposedly Tina saw he wrapping cord around the bundle...but then there are other version of this - a Green pastice contain, another container provide by a crew member to satisfy Coopers need. The satchel use by the stewardesses and the pilots would have done nicely....especially if it had a strap and loops - all he had to do was intertwine the cord in the part of the case and secure it - and he had then made good use of the front chute.

Odd is the fact they supplied the front chutes but supposedly NO hardware to attach them with....this is infomation to me that is deliverately presented in a cloud.

I have PAPERS on the way for Vickie - I hope.....Very highly probably the man buried by his neighbor in a paupers grave was
Vickies dad....Even with cremains I under stand they can still exptract DNA if there is a piece large enought.

When I found this in 1998 I didn't about Vickies father and I spoke to the man on the phone a couple of time during that time spand....

The tougest is find him now so they can see of how the singnal fit the clousds.... siginal flies match....when they fire a pauper grave to not as ususual so the should be enough to end this. Tired Vicky we go to finish this and see what they do with it.

18 yr of my life lies on this - becuase it 18 yr for me to arrive at this point and I am tired. Wonder what they did with his personal effects like a watch and photos.

Quote

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

• Quote

[377 20]

Quote

If Cooper discovered that either the reserve was bogus, or couldn't be attached anyway, you have to figure he might take the safer route and try pulling off the end of the stairs. That lack of a reserve is a key point. Would you really trust going down those stairs and then just leap off the end without a reserve? I'm not a skydiver, but I wouldn't try that one in a million years. I'm going to see if the damn thing opens first. This idea might apply even more if Cooper figured out the reserve was a trainer. If he figured it out at some point, that means he knows the FBI gave him a non-working chute. He has no way of knowing whether it was an accident, or they did it on purpose. This might make him decide to pull on the stairs, just to make sure they hadn't given him another bad chute.

Blevins (above) makes a big deal out of the fact that Cooper was apprehensive jumping without a reserve. Hard to know what Cooper was actually thinking. I wouldn't be worried very much. Chances of a good main opening are very high, especially if it was rigger packed. I am a safety fanatic and would never jump with one chute if I could have two, but one chute is standard for all bailout and ejection rigs. The odds of a good deployment are very high.

If Cooper knew about the Thailand 727 jumps I think he'd have given very serious thought to just pulling on the stairs. A night freefall with an asymmetrical load and a poor or zero visual horizon is risky. An initial tumble and spin are likely. A pull off the stairs solves all those problems.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[377 20]

I spoke again with my friend who served as a paratrooper in the RVN army. He was aware of the sport jumps made in Saigon from military H 34 helos and made a number of freefalls himself but did not know Sheridan Peterson. I showed him a few photos and he did not recognize Sheridan as someone he had jumped with.

I asked him if he knew of or heard rumors of 727 jumps in Thailand. He said he personally was unaware of the 727 jumps but that US military and civilian advisors talked a lot about projects that were likely classified especially when they were drinking. He said the RVN airborne soldiers were known as tough fighters and because of that were on good terms with the US soldiers and airmen and they traded a lot of stories.

He was in combat a number of times but never parachuted into battle. He said they were always delivered by helo.

He saw a lot of 727s flying in and out of Saigon but doubted that they were used for airdrops in VN as word would have leaked out. He said C 123s, Hercs and Caribous did a lot of airdrops but was unaware of any jet aircraft being used for that purpose.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[377 20]

BruceSmith

I have a proposal on parachute lexicography.

I say that "squibbing" is the dynamic that a parachute displays when it deploys, such as "squidding" like a squid or snapping open in a more muscular, explosive fashion.

Hence, old canopies can squib like stained-glass church windows - squidding like they are made of ethereal rip-stop squid fins, but rectangular speed jobs squib like bricks until landing, when they are as gentle as a mother's kiss.

Can I get an "AMEN" from all you jumpers out there?

No AMEN because it violates a basic rule of aviation safety to have two words meaning different things that sound nearly the same.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.