Beatnik

I think some of this "copy" stuff really depends on context, like stealing the test answers of someone else. For example. I am currently restoring and rebuilding a 1948 RCAF Para-Rescue Technicians rig. Nobody knows of any complete rigs left in existence. Correspondence with the manufacturer even indicated that they no longer have an information on it or parts, etc. So I am left with old photos, and individual's experience to direct me how I can make as close to exact "copy" of the components I need. I am copying someone else's work and taking there ideas. Should this be allowed? Anything wrong with what I am doing? I don't feel what I am doing is wrong or unethical in anyway. I guess I could use the history aspect of it and argue that way but I don't think that I have to. It is a straight out copy of another design. This happens in museums a lot which some profit from and you could argue is for their use. Is that wrong? Just trying to get a feel on where you are coming from. I can see how this can be an issue as it has happened to friends of mine but that involved other companies using their design for their profit and not an individual using the design for their own use.

Just need somebody to make a Lonestar 2 kit. I agree, I could see some open source equipment eventually becoming available. It is happening in so many areas, I don't see why it wouldn't happen here. Cheers, Jim

USPA is a national aero club and issues licenses (certificates of proficiency) on behalf of the FAI and they are all internationally recognized. The FAI changed the minimum requirements for an FAI recognized license. The USPA, as a national aero club, has followed the FAI. This is a world wide thing and affects every aero club, not only the USPA. For the licenses to be internationally recognized, FAI licenses (certificates of proficiency), they had no choice. You can check out the minimum requirements here: https://www.fai.org/document-compression/25045

He probably got the tapes and book from me. I gave it to a couple of people across the pond once I digitized all them. The audio tapes aren't anything special.

I believe he is looking for a copy of the Lone Star Parachute Assembly Manual that mentioned early on in this thread. The manual, along with the audio tapes, was used to assemble the precut pieces that they sold with it at additional cost. The parachute did a few things that aren't conventional with modern parachute manufacturing. The manual used to be available online, I believe at the UKskydiver.co.uk site. I have two versions of it scanned in pdf form and a couple of years ago I digitized the audio tapes. I will make it a point sometime this year to upload them somewhere as I don't want to field individual requests for it. If someone has a suggestion of a repository where they could be stored and accessed by anyone it could be helpful. I don't want to put it on a private server or where someone could try and turn a profit from it. The information at this point isn't that fantastic.

Are you missing a PC for one and thats why you are asking? I might have a spare one in stock pile of spare parts, cap and all. I definitely have some MA-1s.

Congats to your friend for fulfilling his dream. Jumping a PC is something else. I think you might be a little disappointed in a Jumbo if you do happen to find one. I have one along with several other parachutes in my collection. While the Jumbo looks just like a larger MK1, it doesn't perform anywhere near it. It is pretty sluggish in comparison. I am not exactly a light guy myself so I don't think it has to do with the load. It doesn't seem that the success of the 24' is directly scalable in size.

It wasn't bad. Nothing great though. I don't think it is much different than a regular PC. The descent rate was slower but to try and say it was a huge difference would be an overstatement. I also jump regular PCs with a similar exit weight. I am not that small of a guy and most of these retro jumps are pretty fast PLFs.

Maybe I will bring it out to your neck of the woods sometime. I have a pretty good loading, about 265 lbs exit weight, on it and it didn't turn like any of my other PCs turn. I haven't jumped it that much because of its performance. It is a shame because it has very little jumps.

Hi Jerry: Only the RW PC was made out of lightweight ripstop. The Jumbo was good old taffeta like the other PCs. Mine is in a sleeve and it packs pretty big. I would say comparable in size to a T-10. It is only a PC in shape. It is a real slug in the sky.

I have scanned the copy of the manual I have but there are several other copies that have been online for a while. There are a couple of different versions of it as well. I have focused more time on converting the audio tapes to electronic files and happy to say that is done. These have not been available before. I just have a few things to do to clean them up and then I will make them available online. I have listened to all the tapes and it can be helpful depending on skill level. I may have found a Lonestar canopy as well. I will have to inspect it and determine if it was one when I get sometime. The canopy in question is a home built of the era.

Well it is not a supposed prototype. It has an easy traceable history. The prototype is solid gold in colour. It is the third parachute prototype in my collection.

That is a very good point that you bring up. Thank you for that comparison. I am going to drive that point across when I train new tandem instructors. The harness should be configured properly before boarding the plane. I don't like seeing TIs tighten them down while in the plane. Being an examiner I speak to them regularly. It is hard to change some people's routines but with proper education on how to fit a harness things do get better. UPT does have a video on properly fitting a student harness. All examiner's should have a copy of it.

I don't go on here much anymore. I restored a baby plane a few years ago. The packing procedure in the manual is for a terminal opening. The thought process I was told when I was talking to three of the people involved in designing the bag, risers, test jumper and business partner of Steve Snyder's was they thought it was better to have a bag lock than a premature. If the canopy is still setup with rings and ropes, the packing procedure for subterminal is to skip the noose that the reefing lines make around the suspension lines. If you have found a baby plane it is slightly different than the photos Andrew has linked to. If my Mark I eyeball is correct, those photos appear to be of a Para-plane Cloud. Slightly different parachute. I have a few recent jumps on my Para-plane. If you need any help with anything send me a PM. But don't put a slider on it like was suggested in this thread. The Type V lines don't take the friction produced well and the heat shrink knots connecting the suspension lines is a hang up point. You might get away with a accuracy slider with the d-rings but that canopy is not designed for one which is pretty clear when you look at the lines. On a side note, I picked up a related and very noteworthy canopy earlier this year. I was given Steve Snyder's second prototype ramair. It is very similar to a Para-Plane in many respects.

I There seems to be a lot of posts about me. Since I hardly feel the need to build a reputation from posts I hardly long on here anymore. I would rather build it first hand. Getting to some of your posts. My information comes from interviewing the individuals that were part of the subject (my interviews go back to the first president of CSPA and in some cases before), historical documents, photo evidence, reports, etc. I try not to let my opinion be construed as fact and rather get the correct and verified information. I have said it several times before. You pass your opinion on as fact. All I try to do is clear the information with accurate information for people to read and take on. Opinions are just that and there is usually a lot more information surrounding something than what is on the surface. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Any personal stuff that may or may not be there I leave out of public forums. If you would like to discuss this at anytime, please PM me and we can chat. You may have an idea of some of it since we had a brief time of working together but that really isn't an issue for me. I won't discuss anything in public as it is not the place for it. While I can appreciate the advice you are trying to give. I have a lot of experience with research methods and know how to pick out judgemental information. Using historical documents have to backed up with other sources of information, reviewed and checked. What you mention about them is a small piece of the issues with them. Feel free again to contact me about research methods, I would be happy to discuss them with you. I have a lot of formal education in this area and by no means an expert but have done a lot of it in my ten years of university and three degrees. You should probably do more research in this area as there are libraries full of information that contradict this statement. Your previous post answers your question, name bureaucrats, CSPA BoD. The original document which I still have is quite a bit longer but before being posted to the CSPA website, it was vetted by staff, BoD and committees at CSPA to make sure it was what they wanted. It is their website and they can put as much or as little as they would like on it. So thinking I have omitted something may just be an opinion and not necessarily the truth or factual information as an example. There are like usual other inaccuracies in some of your posts but I just don't care about trying to fix them. You have your opinions of things and like to share them in such a way using judgemental language so they will be taken as fact. That isn't to say that you don't have some good or relevant information but doesn't make it cause of why something happened or is done.

Are you trying to collect them for something to do with skydiving history? Or are you just wanting them because they are different? Parawings seem to never go out of fashion. What I mean is that people always seem to want them because of the design. They are highly desirable and generally fetch a high dollar value. Which how the current market is with these chutes, unless you can find someone to give you one, I would expect you to be paying $500 US or more per chute. A Sailwing you would probably pay 4 or more times that amount since only 50 or so were ever made and they are the unicorn of the retro scene. This is not a cheap area of skydiving to get into. I have been involved in the retro scene now for almost 14 years and have a little bit of knowledge in this gear. I own the list that you are looking for and a lot more. Some I have multiples of like four Delta II's, two dactyls, 8 PCs, 3 Paps, 2 Thunderbows, etc. None of my gear is for sale nor would I let just anyone jump them. Most of them belonged to close friends of mine and they were given to me to look after. Some of the chutes you are looking for can get yourself into a bad situation with if you are not careful and don't know what you are doing, like the paradactyl. If you want to see these chutes in the air, you can take a trip out to Gan when I am there and I would be more than happy to display them. Good luck in your search and if you get any of these chutes don't hurt yourself. The last thing the retro scene needs is people saying that these chutes are dangerous because people are being careless under them as has happened in the past in Canada.

No there isn't. Al produced them under an FAA TSO to my recollection. Since there are no FAA offices in Canada to do the inspection, Transport Canada on behalf of the FAA did the inspection and sent the information back. Same thing was done with other Canadian manufacturers that applied and was approved for an FAA TSO. That is the information I remember Al telling me and the other Canadian manufacturer, now defunct, with their TSO.

It has been a couple of months since I was last on dz.com but I do have some news about this. Right now I have the audio tapes converted to MP3 and the manual scanned. I just have some cleaning up of the scans and the conversion before I share them. But progress has been made and it is really close to being finished and available.

Your math is a little out. The conversion factor for miles per hour to knots is: 0.86897624190816 The equation would be knots = miles per hour X conversion factor. Assuming tandem terminal is 170 mph. knots = 170 X 0.86897624190816 = 147.7259611243872 They are approximately 52 knots short of the 200 mark.

Crown assets has been removing lines since at least the 1960's. At least that is what one of the riggers that I apprenticed under said and since he was a rigger from the mid-50s for the military and was of the people doing it I was trust his word. But that is an aside. Finding MIL SPEC C9's is not that difficult. I have donated four parachute systems to different warbird projects in the country over the last few years. All of which were C9's. Also important to note none were stolen or came from Crown Assets, all obtained legally. I do little work for the Canadian military with the parachute world other than being a tandem examiner for them and someone that does further professional development but that is side projects from my real job. But to your question, I do work with several companies that provide to the militaries outside of Canada. Obtaining these parachutes are not as difficult as you thinking have had several new C9's over the last few years. It is no different than getting quarter bags, SET-10s, MC1's (different variations, MC4's, etc. I unpacked hundreds of these canopies at a place I was helping out last year. The tandem systems that the Canadian military uses are UPT Sigma's. They are exactly the same as the ones being jumped at dropzones throughout the world there is no difference. I don't have details of all the militaries in the world. Could you share what systems you are referring to? Some of the troop systems might be rated for higher but it would depend on what configuration they are in. They still don't use them in as high as airspeeds that they use rounds in. You can call the argument what you will but it doesn't make it less true. The information that you provided doesn't make it significantly significant data that can be relied upon but it can make it your opinion. For the information to be relevant you would need to compare similar damages and gather information. Rounds can withstand far more damage than a square can and still be a safe canopy. I realize that you have more jumps than I do and I won't argue with your personal experience but I have worked a lot in test and evaluation plus I am getting more formal education (a whole programme and degree regarding it) in the aerospace industry within this field and have an idea. It doesn't all come down to jumps. But I digress this can be something we can debate sometime in person if we ever run into each other again. It doesn't need to be discussed here on a open forum. You seem to jump to conclusions a lot. It is not an admission at all. Malfunctions on rounds are different than squares and many malfunctions are landable. But by your statement then landing a ramair that is damaged would be unreliable and out-dated gear. I have lots of gear in my personal collection of parachutes that you could call outdated. I have an old candy-strip from 1952 that I have jumped, which is out-dated by any stretch. But just because something is out-dated doesn't mean that it is unreliable or should be grounded. The two are not synonymous.

I completely agree with you Jerry. I have a lot of experience with both military and sport rounds during the last 15 years having accumulated over 500 jumps on them, plus experience with militaries and manufacturers on different projects. Most malfunctions on rounds are not like the malfunctions on squares like you suggested. They are able to be landed and rounds can take a lot more punishment than a square can. I have yet to see high airspeeds with squares act as reliably as rounds do. Square canopies need a lot more modifications to their deployments to allow them to open reliably at high speeds than rounds. I have seen and packed the different configurations at work for squares many times and they are complicated compared to their round counterparts. The number lower limb injuries may have been greater on rounds but they were less severe than the injuries that can occur from a square. I am with you on rounds.

You would be correct. It is still like that. When training new TI's they will go through and have to know all the Vector emergencies along with the Sigma ones because they have the rating. I can't speak on all examiners but that is the way I train new candidates. Vector tandems are quickly fading out because UPT no longer has the has the patterns to build/repair them. Well they are not in their computers anyways but I am sure paper copies exist somewhere. I think it also comes down to getting a better product out there.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, I have first hand experience that a few within the industry do not always ask for permission to use an invention and go to great lengths to avoid paying for it. Some companies are more honest about this though and it is too bad that others give the entire industry a bad name because of their practices.

I don't see this as the case since you brought up specific examples and made a statement or accusation that I am doing something. If this were the case you would be able to cite examples of it. Here is the quote exactly I am referring to. Please bring forward examples of me bragging about this. If this was a parable as you suggested, you should be able to bring forth examples of this to further illustrate the moral lesson you are trying to tell.

If you want to sling insults Rob, you can do it somewhere else. I am not putting you down at all, I am merely pointing out facts. If you are taking it as an insult then my apologizes as the are not intended that way. But merely given to the readers of this website that there is more to it out there and that they shouldn't necessarily believe partial information or consider it as the whole truth. Competing with you is a good one. What am I competing against you for? This gave me the best laugh I have had in a long time. Thank you for that.