Beatnik

It is a Razorback like mentioned above. If anyone knows anyone that has one that they are willing to part with, please PM me. I have been looking for one for a while.

The manufacturer is usually your best bet. The Spectra ripcord that UPT is using, I believe requires the rig to have an RSL and last I checked it was the same price. If you know the specifications of the ripcord you could also go through JumpShack, their sister company JCO Metals produces most of the ripcords for US gear manufacturers, including the ones for UPT and the hardware in your existing reserve pillow, going on the assumption that it is a metal ripcord and not a Spectra one.

I bet they're fantastic at holding lines to webbing.

I have an article from Canadian Parachutist when some Canadians were doing test jumps for Irvin Air Chute in Fort Erie, Ontario. They were done in 1966 but that was on the Irvin Eagle not the Delta II. I was going from memory with the post. So it should be corrected for the Eagle mid-60's and Delta II late-60's. Thanks for the correction.

Rogallo was working at NASA at the time of the Delta II. His concepts starting the design but the Delta II actually came from another parachute. Originally the Irvin Eagle was out and was a larger parachute than the Delta II. Steve Snyder developed it further with the mods of adding the OSI, stall panels and removing the last section of the parachute making it smaller. Many of the Canadian Delta II's you can easily see the conversion. The parachute is similar to the US version but a close look there are a couple of differences. The nose and reinforcing being the biggest. Then of course there is the Irvin Eagle stamp marked out and restamped Delta II. The era of the parawing is harder to answer. The Delta II was mid-60's, Paradactyl mid-70s, Double Keel Dactyl late-70s/early-80s and the PZ-81 (which is a reserve chute) was mid-90s. The design keeps coming back for probably the same reason so many take such an interest in them.

I forgot about it doing that. Usually a few turns and it will do that or like you say holding into the wind. There isn't a lt of pressure there and it is pretty easy to spill the air out. It doesn't seem to matter which parawing either it happens on all of them or at least all the types I have jumped.

I concur with it being un-nerving watching the OSI unwrap. But that is some of the fun with the parachute. I have never had any of mine turn in the opposite direction in a hard turn but these parawings do many strange things and their flight characteristics can be altered so easily, I can believe it.

Never said you couldn't send it back. I know that you will take care of something like that but most jumpers probably won't make the decision to send it back to the manufacturer. There is one particular brand of AAD, which not many people use anymore had a similar system of not requiring routine checks of their system and I have seen some big problems. Even when this particular AAD was sent back for a check to the manufacturer, it had problems and ended up firing on the ride to altitude. Like I said before, I don't think one is particularly better or works better than the other. My personal preference and reason I would buy a particular AAD, if I was to start jumping with one, is because of the mandatory maintenance. But for me, with the amount of gear I have, unless I put AAD's in all of the gear it would be very beneficial to put one in a rig I jump less than the majority of the time. It is nice to know that you get a detailed list of the maintenance preformed. That is definitely worth noting.

I am trying to figure that one out. Granted that this isn't a huge sample size but between a friend and my jumps, there is about 100 on the Delta II. We have never had ever remotely an issue with it. I wonder if it had to do with packing and the rush to make another jump. I don't rush when I pack it and make sure everything is really neat.

I don't jump with an AAD but if I was to get one I would probably get a CYPRES. Not that I think it functions better than a Vigil but actually because of the maintenance. I use what I think is a comparable analogy with vehicles. I personally wouldn't feel safe in a car if no maintenance was ever done. Sure you could wait till the problem surfaced and was noticed but having it checked and a potential problem caught is very reassuring. Just a thought and if the analogy doesn't fit, I will have to think of another way to explain it. Not saying that one is better than the other but the idea of schedule maintenance for me is psychologically comforting if nothing else.

Where did you get your binder from? I contacted a few places that people have recommended on here and they have come back with a price around $300 and the same requirement to send in the intended material to sew. I am research before I replace the binder I have.

Ken considering that we have very rarely talked and hardly know each other. Your implications seem to be made with little first hand evidence. I never thought and never claimed I have vast knowledge. But thanks for the compliment.

Congrates! Very cool idea.

What are you trying to imply? The guy had 7 machines in total that he was selling, I think he wanted them gone since he was wanting space. Since he was a fashion designer for years he may have known and wanted a quick sale. M]But my perception of whether he realized the value is irrelevant. He set the price in his ad and I gave him the full asking price.

Same with mine. It was the best $375 on a sewing machine I ever spent. I don't think the guy realized the value of the machine.

Soon that will have to change to Eastern Canadian skydiving. I am moving east in a few months.

Talk to the guys are Edmonton Skydive Centre. They use manifest software on Macs. http://www.edmontonskydive.com/

Hi Ian: No worries, the words can be applied to me as well. I don't believe that I personally try to project that when I post. The thing I was trying to point out was to not throw out credentials to a given argument to try and win a side of an argument. Which is done a lot. In regards to the way I say things, they may come out a lot worse than they are intended and I will apologize for this and any others I have done previously. Most people who know me know I don't really beat around the bush and I can be rough at times. I don't mind if others are like that with me as well, all is fair. Rob, I apologize if I offended you with my statement. I personally don't like like arguments from authority mainly because it is a reasoning error that people should believe something that someone has said only because of the credentials behind their name. Like I said before what you have said, is true to an extent but there really aren't any restrictions in this country. There may be restrictions within a certain sport organization. But they have no ability to impose a "restriction" nationwide, which is what the question was asking and isn't a concept. I hope this doesn't stir the pot more cause I am really not trying to do that. At least not this time. Jim

First thing I am going to mention because this is a real annoyance of mine and is a poor argument method and faulty reasoning is an argument from authority. As far as I know I have not seen you being titled up there as the guru of parachutes in Canada. Believe it or not there are times you are wrong. Just something I have to get off my chest. What I got is not a concept. CSPA is just CSPA, there is no mention anywhere law wise that riggers have to be CSPA or FAA for that matter in Canada. There are many people in Canada that pack PEPs without a rigger rating and it is completely legal. The rating system that CSPA has, which is more than you mention (I know I have all the ratings too), doesn't hold any weight when it comes to PEPs. It is simple something that they don't have any right to govern and while CSPA might require all the ratings the world outside it doesn't. Them thinking it is sufficient is far from what is actually required or what the restrictions are. I have already mentioned people packing without "rigger ratings" this happens for the same people that you have worked for, Transport Canada and the Canadian Forces (we dropped the armed years ago). They seem to think that is sufficient as well. So what does that mean? I have worked for the same people probably a lot higher up the chain than you have. I am well aware of the regulations and deal with them constantly. Check into the regs, there is a lot more then what you think. Being able to apply and understand the regs and what they say is a lot different than just reading them.

There was a Velcro closure at the end of the OSI that peeled back to release it during the initial inflation. Between the coloured line groups is nothing but the wrap itself.

I very well could be wrong with this but I think the Sierras were somewhat of a contender for the RW PC. They both have similar construction and materials and came out around the same period of time. May guess is very few were made. Even though times were shifting into the era of the square, the PC still had a name for itself. Just my thoughts.

It would be nice if you let people who know what they are talking about answer questions instead of trying to jump in to be the first to answer. The reason I say this is because there are many partial truths to what you say but without all the information it leads to a hasty generalization. Mass drops were tried at one time with square parachutes and it proved to be unsuccessful but not for the sole reason of them running into each other. Rounds can and do run into each other and there is also the issue of stealing each other's air from being in the stream of another's chute. Another is because of training. It is far more effective to train a person to be able to do a job with less complications than spend greater amounts of time for something that doesn't have an effect for overall mission success. As for openings, ramairs can open pretty dam fast and easily faster than a round. Look at the volume of air that is required to inflate a round compared to that of a ramair. A round parachute also serves to benefit the user a lot more than a ramair would after they have reached the ground. Many that have taken military survival courses know this. There is a reason some of the chutes are coloured the way they are, for instance a quad-colour C9. Each colour has a purpose. Really to answer the OP question, additional questions need to be asked like what part of military jumps do you want to know about, in what setting, for what purpose. Good for you being so quick to reply and give an answer but to some up the reason in one sentence is not giving a meaningful answer to the question. Just something to think about.

Here's a couple photos I took of a friend's. That strap trailing off the one side is the OSI or Opening Shock Inhibitor. During packing you would wrap it around a series of the coloured lines and then proceed to the next colour. During opening it would release a series of the coloured lines before the next, from front to back, and allow that part of the canopy to fully inflate.

Can I guess or should I wait? I have a red and white checkerboard one.

While you are correct on this. It is only a CSPA thing, there really isn't any regulation or anything preventing it from happening. It is like packing pilot rigs in Canada. Show me some regs on them. I have my ratings but CSPA doesn't really govern anything outside of the skydiving realm. While your statements about the Bullet and CSPA are correct, there isn't any real restriction about sewing an AAD pocket in. Just be warned I will fight you on this one if you try to come back saying that I am wrong. I have done the research into all of this and am very familiar with what the actual restrictions are and how they are applied. I am not saying to take a outside approach but there is nothing stopping you from doing so in Canada.