sundevil777

Of course the canopy can inflate. It depends on how much force it takes to clear the risers. Cutting away and clearing the risers first could take the rest of a person's life. The landing could have been gentle. The trouble with the canopy trailing from the foot would have been minimized by just taking control of the reserve canopy and going into fairly deep brakes. Slow your airspeed and the canopy would not have so much drag. Even if a person lands that way with little to no flare, it would have been better than the unguided crash.

Perhaps the various AAD mfgs should be consulted regarding whether their units will decide something has gone haywire (bad data-climb rate too high to be believable), and shut off! You never know...Ha!

Might it also have been you really WANTED it!?

Now it makes sense, the high cost of the plane is offset by being able to offer training flights to special forces operators needing to practice from those altitudes. Seems reasonable to beat the cost of using a C-17. I don't think a C-130 can go that high.

The microraven has a reputation for being very sensitive to higher wingloading, with unexpected/sudden stalls slamming people on their back. That is just my memory of forum threads from years ago, a search would confirm more details.

Did anyone address what that metal pull-up slotted plate was doing in there? A person could conclude the video was intentionally set-up to fail, but the plate just fell out so obviously?

I think the Infinity by Velocity Sports Equipment is one of the best rigs at offering different size main and reserve combinations. The Racer if my memory is correct is also versatile in what can be ordered. Perhaps others can correct me if other mfgs also are as flexible in what can be offered. I have the good sense to have a 210 main at a WL of 1.12, and a 220 reserve. I've been well served by having low WL on the square reserve rides I've had. Anyway, I was wondering what you all thought of how much flexibility there is from mfgs in general to being able to combine a 100 main with a 200 reserve as just an example. I don't know if any mfg can do that. Perhaps it is really difficult as the number of combinations forces many different flap sizes and unintended interactions. Of course the demand is just not there. Until there is a demand for it, a 1.7 reserve WL on a swooping rig will be considered normal.

I believe the point was being made about main pilot chutes/deployment system, not main canopies. I don’t think stowless dbags are so common as to be considered where gear has converged.

I think that using non-zero porosity fabric on the lower skin does not result in lower performance. When a wing is flying at high angles of attack (such as during a flared landing), it is very important that the airflow over the top of the wing stay "attached"/not separate from the surface of the wing. If air is leaking out through the top skin fabric too much, then I think it has the effect of separating the airflow. Conditions on the bottom skin of the wing are very different, with separation not being an issue, so leakage through non-ZP fabric on the bottom doesn't matter. If it was possible to actually suck air into the wing through/from the top skin, then you get the ability to produce good lift at even higher angles of attack, as the airflow stays attached when it otherwise would not. This has been done on some experimental airplanes, including a Boeing 757 testbed that had part of the wing drilled with very tiny holes and a vacuum applied to suck air into the wing. So, air leaking out through the fabric matters a lot for the top skin, but not for the bottom, as long as it is not so much that cell pressurization suffers. That's my theory on why non zp is being applied on bottom skins, and I think it makes sense. In my previous life I was a mechanical design engineer, even did such for the Boeing company.

My review is in the gear section.

Their marketing bullet points includes IP67, that should do it.

Any more actual experience or 2nd hand experience to report? Rock sky market says they are great. Thank you.

What does everyone think of the option of having the Collin’s lanyard or not? If a rig could be made with or without the feature, might we be better off with good RSL ring placement and the simplicity of no Collins lanyard with any of the current MARDs? I understand the choice doesn’t exist, this is hypothetical.

The “factory pack” as it was called back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, could be done very much like a reserve is often packed, including the nose pointed forward like a propack. The psycho pack has been working well for many years here, Precision Parachutes had it listed on their website along with instructions. It isn’t so different.

I agree the view from the chin is not as good as the top of a helmet, but it still is nice. I disagree about interference with moving the head down for the chinmount.com design at least. That one is very tight/low profile to the helmet. I've used it with a gopro Session for almost 3 years. It is easy for jumpers to think they'll just cutaway or breakaway a snagged top mount camera. It is not so much the snag with a main that really bothers me. The unappreciated risk is entanglement of a top mounted camera with a deploying reserve bridle/lines/whatever. Reserves are often deployed while in a head high, even back to the wind orientation, resulting in the reserve deploying past a helmet. This is when being really snag resistant is critical. At least 2 incidents in the last few years of reserves being found on the ground fouled by cameras, I believe.