Kirils 1 #1 January 19, 2003 I was recently told that the new trend in skydiving is to switch to base style PC's with a vented top (apex vent) They are supposed to spin and occillate much less and conquesently make deployment safer and more reliable... Any thoughts, or have any of you made the switch? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #2 January 19, 2003 On skydiving PC's its more critical to have a balenced PC then it is a vented. Vented ones are usually constructed to higher levels of quality then some other PC's, but if you get good PC made by RWS, Cazer, etc it should'nt matter. At terminal I've always been told its much more body position then it is PC orbiting.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #3 January 19, 2003 Quote I was recently told that the new trend in skydiving is to switch to base style PC's with a vented top (apex vent) Really? I had heard that the new trend was to use BASE pilot chutes on BASE rigs and normal pilot chutes on normal skydive rigs. Something about equipment made specifically for it's intended use."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #4 January 20, 2003 Quote ........Something about equipment made specifically for it's intended use. ok.. now that's just silly.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #5 January 20, 2003 Trouble is, they don't collapse. ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #6 January 20, 2003 I can change that. but what's the point My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maretus 0 #7 January 20, 2003 I really don't see that a vented PC would bring any actual advantage to terminal skydiving deployments. If you are thinking about correcting offheading openings by switching to a vented PC you really are watching to a wrong direction. I'd say that 95 % of offheadings are due to a bad body position on deployment. So check out your body position first.http://www.ufufreefly.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #8 January 20, 2003 F-111 PC's oscillate and orbit even less than vented ZP PC's. If this is a primary concern for you, I recommend switching to an F-111 PC instead. In BASE, some situations (low deployments, for example), are best served with ZP PC's. However, most of the things leading us to use ZP PC's (which require venting to reduce oscillation) are not present in the skydiving environment.So, if you are thinking of venting your PC, why not just switch to F-111?Disclaimer: My knowledge of skydiving is limited enough that you ought to talk to an experienced skydiving rigger (or the manufacturer of your gear) for potential downsides to an F-111 PC in the skydiving environment.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #9 January 20, 2003 This is the first I have heard about vented pilotchutes for skydiving. However, I plan to attend Bill Booth's lecture on pilotchutes during next week's PIA Symposium. I will post what I have learned in early February. For a while now, we have been pushing the edge of the envelope in terms of round pilotchute design. The first step is tightening manufacturing tolerances (i.e. sewing reinforcing tapes on the bias of the mesh), but I have been wondering when we will reach the limits of round pilotchute technology. I have experimented with square pilotchutes, but since they have a more parts, square pilotchutes are more difficult/expensive to build. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #10 January 20, 2003 Have you considered an annular (donut shaped) PC? I have an AF reference with various parachute shapes, and it implies that an annular shape would actually be most efficient.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #11 January 20, 2003 Quote I have experimented with square pilotchutes, but since they have a more parts, square pilotchutes are more difficult/expensive to build. So what are the potential advantages of square pilot chutes? Or were you doing it just because you could?! (A perfectly valid reason by the way GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #12 January 21, 2003 My main motivation for building square pilotchutes was to find an easier way to build tandem drogues. I quickly concluded that square pilotchutes worked, but they were far more labor intensive than round pilotchutes. You would only see a cost savings on larger drogues. Since tandem manufacturers have a really bad attitude towards after-market parts installed on their rigs, my project ground to a halt. I can understand their attitude since it is too easy to build parts without understanding how they interact with original parts. To obtain a Supplementary Type Certificate for after-market drogues, you would have to convince the FAA that you know more about tandems than Strong. Hah! It is difficult for field riggers to compete with the guys who see hundreds of faded, frayed and filthy tandem rigs every year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #13 January 21, 2003 QuoteMy main motivation for building square pilotchutes was to find an easier way to build tandem drogues. Forgive my lack of rigging knowledge but what's the difficult thing about building tandem drogues and how would a square drogue address the problem? GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #14 January 22, 2003 QuoteQuoteMy main motivation for building square pilotchutes was to find an easier way to build tandem drogues. Forgive my lack of rigging knowledge but what's the difficult thing about building tandem drogues and how would a square drogue address the problem? Gus: end quote It depends which tandem drogue you are comparing it with. For example, Racer drogues are only slightly more complex than your average kill-line pilotchute. Vector drogues are more complex ballutes, while Strong drogues are a hopelessly complex design with dozens of parts and more curves than I can count. Strong drogues are the most stable - from the photographer's perspective - but prohibitively expensive to manufacture and a nightmare to repair! The beauty of square drogues is that you can build one using only 4 flat patterns and a total of only 7 or 9 flat pieces, with zero curves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 January 22, 2003 Quotedrogues are more complex ballutes Thats the old Vector drogues, not the new Sigmas, the new Sigmas are just about as simple as a kill-line PC...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
