HPC

Five dollars apart as a royalty per canopy?

Quote

You’re talking ancient history here.

I understand that both canopy product lines are obsolete; however, should that preclude my asking a question just for the sake of satisfying curiosity?
It was something that I always had wondered about.

I remember reading a post months ago in which the poster's experience was the opposite of yours - he felt the Fury's performance was inferior to its predecessor (Pegasus) as a result of the change.

I'd like to hear assessments from people (obviously geared to those of you who've been in the sport for a long time) who have had the opportunity to jump canopies from Django Enterprises and Glide Path/Flight Concepts.
More specifically, from those who have jumped the identical canopies except for the differing line attachment methods. I'm trying to determine if there was an improvement or degradation in canopy performance as a result of the forced change, such as openings, forward speed, glide ratio, turning, stability, landings, pack volume, strength, etc. Below I've listed the Django direct line attachment canopies and their flared Glide Path (later Flight Concepts) successors.

Pegasus-->Fury
LR-288-->Manta
Firefly-->Firelite
Dragonfly-->Raider
Bandit-->Wildfire

Correct me if I've made any errors.

Thanks.

Exactly what I would be thinking. This should never have gotten past the rigger.

Leave it to a Brit to spoil things!😐

Quote

(no one ever sells new gear that they bought and then quit skydiving for anything close to the original purchase price).

But it's not that they're not trying. Probably the biggest reason for all of the closet queens out there.

So I guess if that rigger were going to pack my reserve I would have to tell him to pack it without someone watching - especially quick-witted girls!

Sorry, but I never thought that a non-rigger would have gonads big enough to tell a rigger how to repack. Otherwise, I would have included that option.

When I put the poll together I couldn't come up with every scenario, especially those involving idiots.
Guess I should have known better.

Actually, response six and to a degree seven do. Besides, if they want to watch you, and if they ask questions along the way, then they are by demonstration taking an interest in their gear.
The response I forgot (or ran out of allowable number of responses) was "Yes, as long as they have a good sense of humor and come loaded with a bunch of dirty jokes".
Most importantly, they can be there to pay you as soon as you're done!

Quote

The reality is, in my experience, they don't just want to "watch," they want you to explain what you're doing and why, which means it's now a packing demonstration, which takes longer. There IS a time and place for that. It has real value and can be a rewarding experience (and is awesome for customer relations). But if I did it for every packjob, or even made it available for every pack job, I'd have to raise my prices by 50%.

The poll allows for this - see answer five.

Quote

, what makes you think having a non rigger there, who understands the instructions even less, would improve that situation? I just don't see that it would.

From a procedural standpoint, I don't. But common sense can be applied even if the person making the observation isn't trained, especially if the person making the observation is mechanically or technically inclined or has a natural aptitude for the type of work he's observing. I'm not a rigger but if I saw my rigger tucking PC fabric underneath anything then common sense would have me questioning it, perhaps with an opening comment that would alleviate any signs of offending the rigger. Besides, you don't have to be a rigger to notice a tear he may have missed, or some loose threads, or anything that looks amiss. There's a lot of fabric, seams, lines, etc. in a reserve so a rigger could miss something. See reply eight in the poll.

Thanks for your input. You're just the type of rigger I would want packing my reserve or to perform any rigging work. And you're right about gear surgery - I would feel edgy watching my gear under the knife, and would rather just see the finished work.

This poll is directed to former and current riggers, all levels. This question came to me after a brief exchange with a rigger while discussing the reserve malfunction thread. The reserve pilot chute wouldn't launch during a repack due to apparent misinterpretation of the manual. I would recommend reading his and my comments regarding clients watching their riggers repack their reserves, before answering the poll if possible.

Also, feel free to post a reply in the event I missed a possible response, or if you wish to elaborate. The poll allows for more than one reply.

Thanks.

You're missing the point.
Watching your rigger pack your reserve teaches you exactly how the reserve system works, from the time the pin clears the closing loop (or AAD cuts it) until the time the reserve inflates. Knowing the entire reserve deployment sequence can only help you in an emergency situation in which your reserve has an issue. You'd be surprised how many younger jumpers know so little about how their equipment is put together and how it works. One can never have too much knowledge about their equipment in this sport. It has nothing to do with paranoia or rigger trust.
However, having said that, even the best rigger can have an off day and screw up. It happens to the best, just as sometimes the best surgeons screw up, or the most experienced commercial pilots forget to perform a basic function and crash their flight. Case in point, I can think of four pilots (actually eight when you include the FOs) who forgot to set their flaps for takeoff and crashed, killing hundreds. Another example, the worst airline disaster in history was caused by an airline's check pilot (their most experienced 747 pilot) that killed 583 people.
It never hurts to have a second set of eyes. I did it with my gear, and my rigger welcomed my presence.

Someone that stupid or incompetent should not be packing reserves. But yes, even the simplest of systems can be f*cked up; however, by having the simplest, most idiot-proof system available you reduce the areas, and thus odds, of having yours screwed up. Skydiving is a sport of odds, and anything that you can do to put the odds in your favor is to your benefit. Skydiving is one of the few sports that has a high potential danger level, unlike say, tennis.
It's cases like this one that should have a jumper wanting to watch their rigger pack their reserve instead of just dropping it off. Two brains exercising common sense are better than one, and you don't have to be a rigger to see that tucking PC material around/under/behind the D-bag or reserve container flaps is a bad idea. And if your rigger feels uncomfortable being watched, then you should find another one. Just my two cents worth...

These are the types of incidents that definitely score points for the Jumpshack Racer rig and its fully external reserve PC.

Just my non-rigger opinion but had your AAD fired at 750' you would have had a total, followed about 4 seconds later with a fatality.
These are the kinds of posts that DZ.com users really benefit from.
Please follow up once Mirage Systems and you have figured out exactly what happened.

Hartzell props - you didn't see those too often on Twin Beeches. Most had twin-bladed Hamilton Standards. The D-18 I used to jump from in IL also had Hartzells.

Just curious as to what vintage things you want to jump. I myself would like to jump some older (but well kept) mains, so long as the rig and reserve are relatively current.

Maybe at a boogie or convention, but not as a regular jumpship. Too expensive to operate. Besides, the trend today is going from twin turbines like the Twin Otter and Skyvan, to single turbines like the Caravan and PAC750. Better for the bottom line.

***
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.***
Is this what they call the boundary layer?

We all know that F111-type material is only good for a certain number of jumps before its porosity exceeds 12 CFM and good flares and soft landings become problematic.
But what about hybrid canopies with ZP upper skins and F111 elsewhere?
Because of the F111 component, do those canopies have a life expectancy as well? The ZP will hold up, the F111 won't, so overall how will the canopy perform once the F111 part of it wears out?
Thanks.

Looking at the gray bin with all the parts reminds me of opening up a plastic model ship or plane when I was a kid and looking at all the parts, wondering what it's going to look like once it's put together!

Hugh Hefner felt the same about Playmates - once a Playmate, always a
Playmate.

I'm looking for old manuals for Django canopies. Would prefer hard copies but links to a source or PDFs would work too. I've found the Pegasus and Firefly reserve manuals on this site but they made five canopies that I'm aware of.

Pegasus (7-cell, 220 sq. ft.)
Firefly (7-cell, 172 sq. ft.)
Dragonfly (9-cell, 220 sq. ft.)
LR-288 (9-cell, 288 sq. ft.)
Bandit (9-cell, 168 sq. ft.)
Firefly reserve (same as main?)

If memory serves me correctly, the LR-288 was basically a Pegasus with two additional cells, the Dragonfly was a Firefly with two extra cells, and the Bandit was a new design not based on an existing canopy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks, Mike