alan

There has been a lot of mention of the use of Food Grade Silicone in a few recent threads. It seems as if this product is news to a number of readers. A few years after the CYPRES was introduced and along with it the silicone treated spectra reserve closing loop, I inquired about its use (and the use of spectra for main closing loops) to several rig manufacturers (Rigging Innovations and Sunpath) because I believed it (they)might be superior to WD 40 (gutted 550) for cutaway cable lubrication, which was pretty much the standard back then. It is now mentioned specifically in some owner's manuals. Here is what it is good for. 1: Cutaway cable (yellow Lolon) lubrication, better than WD 40 or any household oil. 2: Reserve cable and pin 3: Any metal parts on the sport rig, including the inside of the cable housings 4: Mil Spec rubber bands and tube stows (line stows) it will increase their life span.... a lot. 5: Closing loops, both resrve and main, use the CYPRES gel for the CYPRES loop on a CYPRES equipped rig, 725# spectra makes a very durable main closing loop, especially when treated with silicone spray 6: Pull-up cords, use a gutted 550 pull-up and treat it with the spray to further increase the life span of your cloing loop and reduce the chance of a friction burn on the side against the pin (where you can't see it during a routine pin check) Where can you get it? Almost any hardware store. ACE is popular but Fleetfarm, True Value, etc. have it. Look around, some cans will be labelled as "Food Grade", you may have to read the fine print. What does it cost? About $5 for a spray can. Price will vary according to brand, store and location. Don't pay more than $10. How long will a can last? That depends on how much you use it. A rigger may use a can in a week. A recreational skydiver, it may last their entire career. Who should have a can? Any skydiver that inspects and maintains their own rig IAW most manufacturers intructions. alan

In reply to no one in particular, A barrel roll, when understood and done properly is just another fun flight parameter to explore and is not an extreme manuever for an experienced canopy pilot. It is a smooth, positive G manuever that can be learned incrementally. It does not involve any stalling or toggle whipping but instead requires you to learn how to conserve the energy of your canopy. It does require a relatively high performance canopy (Stiletto is a good example) with a wing loading that allows one to build up enough energy to maintain a positive G force through the manuever. About 1.4 should be fine for a canopy like the Stiletto. Induce some speed, a steep toggle turn of 180 or 360 dregrees should be more than sufficient when you are first learning the manuever (I can do one from neutral flight with my 89 VX). Smoothly transition back to neutral flight. Watch the horizon. The canopy will plane out and even start to climb a little all on its own, because of the extra lift generated from the speed induced by the turn. As the canopy wants to climb, smoothly add brakes to increase the angle of attack. Be very sensitive and aware of the feel of the canopy. The goal here is not to stall or bleed off all of the speed. In fact, you want to conserve as much of the energy (speed) as possible. The feel on thr brakes should remain firm. As the canopy pitches up, smootly add a little more toggle on one side (the side on the direction you want to roll in) and smoothly let up a little on the other. As you go over the top, ease up on that first toggle a little, come back to both in a slight brake, then go all neutral. At the very bottom of the finish, you may need to counter steer a little to stay on heading. You won't be able to get 100% over the top because the canopy needs to maintain a positive angle of attack, but you can get within about 10 or 15 degrees of verticle. Go at it easy. Don't try to do it on the first try. Learn how to build a lot of speed, then learn how to pitch the canopy up and see how much speed you can maintain. Then add in the braked turn (yes, braked turn, if done well, a barrel roll can be done with very little loss of altitude) a little at a time as you build confidence and get a feel for your canopy. You can learn to do this with risers as well, but remember, it is not about yanking on a control input to the point of inducing a stall on one side or the other or possibly inducing line twists. It is fun. Video a tandem and do a barrel roll after the opening. During the playback, pause the the vid at the point where the horizon is upside down. You'll be surpised at how many people will want to know how you did that. This is not a comprehensive instructional on barrel rolls. Just a little primer of the basics and it assumes you understand basic principles of flight and aerodynamics. It should go without saying, but I'll say it any way............Do this at a safe altitude in clear airspace. alan

My first reaction to your pics is that your reserve closing loop may be way too loose. Just a guess though, as I'm only going by the pics. I am a rigger though and have seen other rigs look like this. Try a different rigger and BTW, those wrinkles, if left there long enough, tend to become permanent even if it is packed properly. alan

Well, it appears I have this. Pretty cool when I think about how much I spent when I was younger to feel like this. Free now......well, actually I get comp from the VA, go figure. My periods of vertigo don't usually last more than a day or two at a time and seem less severe when I take Meclazine at the early warning signs and my daily dose of HCTZ. I get a doppler effect in the tinnitus and what feels like a change in the pressure in my ahead about two hours before the vertigo starts to set in. My doctors at the VA say as long as this does not change, I could continue to jump but with caution. So, if I feel OK, I jump. If I don't feel OK, I watch and enjoy flying in clouds. Anyone else with Meniere's experience? alan

*** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CYPRES cutter location seems to be the issue here not the top flap design. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not if the Cypres cutter location works fine if the reserve flap tucks back under itself (like the Vector III/Mircron) and doesn't tuck into the bottom flap (like the Mirage, Javelin, and Talon/VooDoo). *** The CYPRES cutter location is only relevant if you don't pull the reserve handle. If the CYPRES/cutter location presents a problem, then move or remove it. The reserve top flap will open just fine if you pull the ripcord handle, as evidenced by years of field and bench tests. I guess if you want to mince words and argue that if the cutter is located on the flap or off, as the case may be, then it is part of the design. My position is that the flap has a basic design and the addition of the CYPRES is an add on. It would seem that in adding it on and integrating it into his newer models, Bill Booth did his homework the best. I feel the Mirage incident that revived this thread was not due to poor top flap design on the reserve container, but rather a poor design for the cutter location or perhaps a combination of things that included some sloppy rigging. The reserves in question did after all activate when the handles were pulled, correct? My original question in this thread, a year or more ago I might add, asked something to the effect of if there had been any documented reserve totals as a result of poor top flap design over the last 12 or 13 years. I can recall a small variety of reserve failures, but none described as a total being attributed to poor top flap design. Maybe I missed something. Help me out. alan

You appear to be gloating over the possibilty that there may at some time be a documented incident of a reserve top flap design causing a total mal in field use. While I'm sure that is not what you intended, it did leave me with that impression. Aside from that, in looking back over the thread, I stand by my question. The CYPRES cutter location seems to be the issue here not the top flap design. When bench tested, all units worked when the ripcord was pulled. Every time. It was only CYPRES activations that failed. The only time my reserve top flap will fail to open is if I fail to pull the handle or someone tampers with it. And finally, to echo your sentiment, a big thanks to Bill Booth for his advancements in gear design and safety, as well as his willingness to share his knowledge and experience here on the boards. alan

After you all are done with all of this cleaning and get to the re-assembly part, don't forget to do a thorough inspection. Pay special attention to the tacking on your cable housings, it tends to loose its wax and come untied. A flexible gun cleaning rod (.22 cal) is handy to swab out the housings as well. alan

Probably, but my guess is that it will be more of a marketing ploy than an actual improvement in performance. The vortex generators will delay separation at high angles of attack. With a canopy, when it reaches the higher angles of attack near the end of a swoop, there is very little speed left to maintain pressurization of the canopy. In addition to that, the stagnation point has moved below the air inlet and further reduces the pressure that is needed to maintain the airfoil. I believe that at this point, low airspeed and high AOA, where the votex generator has the most potential to raise the L/D, on a non-rigid airfoil there is no airfoil left.....it won't be able to function. Now perhaps if we borrow from the BASE people and put mesh on the bottom surface, use improved nose designs (R.A.G.E.), and improved airfoils, we can maybe get to a point where vortex generators may actually function. alan

Well, not really. You would still have to deal with the people currently out there and have spent money on parachutes that don't conform to your standards. And the issue of all new students and graduates asking about them and saying if they can do that, so can I. It would take some time and a concerted effort. alan

Dacron has been known to take a "set" when used for closing loops, especailly in thew 800# or heavier. The combination of large diameter and "set" can cause the table total described in another post, but a bump on the container will release it. I've seen it. 1000# Spectra or heavier will have the same issues. I've only seen Dacron in 400#, 600#, 800#, 900# and 1575#. 725#, or lower, Spectra makes a great main closing loop. No "set" or diameter issues. A little dab of silicone and care with the pullup cord, and they will last for hundreds of jumps as you already know. The only major concern is the same as with all pullups/closing loops. The pullup will damage the loop if removed carelessly, something most of us learned during our first few packing lessons. Spectra however, has a lower tolerance to heat and is more easily damaged by a "zipped out" pullup cord. The real danger comes in that the damage may be hidden on the inside of the loop, even when put under the pin before removal. The heat generated by the friction from "zipping" the cord out can damage the sides of the loop, hidden against the pin. As with any loop, proper tension is important. The coating on the Spectra and the silicone I add reduce the friction from both the pullup and pin. With proper loop tension though, inadvertant slipping of the pin is not an issue. I use Spectra loops, but inspect them regularly, silicone them, and pack for myself. On the rare occassions that I use a packer, I remind them to be careful and then observe them. They know to be careful. It is my opinion that a 725# Spectra loop is superior to the industry standard of Type IIA Nylon for a main closing loop. Sandy Reid told me years ago that the only reason Type IIA is the industry standard is that it is abundant, can be found anywhere, and is very inexpensive. It works just fine, it just doesn't last as long as Spectra. alan

Don't vortex generators need some sort of airfoil in order to function? Just wondering how effective they would be on an inflatable, non-rigid airfoil that is at an angle of attack and airspeed that won't sustain pressurization of the airfoil. alan

Since your questions have pretty much been addressed, I'd like to just make a brief comment on a side issue. It was refreshing to read your initial comments chalking up the opening issues to packing, body position, etc.. How often do we read/hear inexperienced and experienced jumpers alike commenting on the performance of a canopy and blindly passing off any negative attributes to the canopy without giving much, if any, consideration to any of the other factors that may be contributing to or causing the perceived "problem". alan

Not really replying to you GG, but your questions address most of the issues brought up in the thread. Lots of debate in the past on this one. Line dump only really causes a slammer if it includes the locking stowes, which is really bag strip/bag dump. If the canopy is out of the bag before line stretch, then it will open seriously hard, to the extrent of damage, injury, or even death. Closely related to the line dump issue. If the locking stowes alone are tight enough to get the bag to line stretch before the canopy comes out, they are not really an issue other than possibly causing line twist. See above. The locking stowes are really the key issue. Again, really a line twist issue unless it involves the locking stowes. Having the bag at line stretch before the canopy gets out is what is really important. Here is a primary culprit. The slider. I'll add that keeping it tight to the stops is critical to controlling the opening. Can't tell you how many times I've heard a jumper complain about openings and I'll watch them pack only to see them become very careless with the slider during the cocooning part of the pack and then the lay down and stack into the bag. Quarter it, push it all the way down into the canopy, then pull the nose quarter out over the nose of the canopy and then make sure it stays there! Only at the extremes. Zp vs F111 is also a consideration. Miss matching here seeems to be the difficult to explain occassional rogue slammer, not the 'here we go again" issue. This can contribute to variety of opening issues. Get some vid and try to confirm or rule it out. Line twist will crop up here, line overs can sneek in, but are more usually associated with bad packing. Spinning mals, broken lines and torn canopies are my picks here, along with the slammer. Would need to be really bad. It is easy enough to get checked. I've oddly enough experienced better openings on several canopies as the trin gets near to the end of its' recommended life span. My Jedei 136 comes to mind. I'm very fussy about my air molecules and only use hose of the highst quality. I spare no expense and use them at will. Sloppy packing is not really a big deal unless it involves being careless with the slider placement and or the lines. Avoid line-over type mistakes, tension knots and a loose slider. If you have a consistent slammer, contact the manufacturer. They may help. Some may even have you send it in for them to jump and evalute. Some lemons do get out there. alan alan

Yes, I seem to recall a thread a few years back about a Sabre that PD was re-lining for free just to see how many jumps it could get on the original canopy fabric. My memory is bad but I think back then it already had upwards of 20,000 jumps on it. If anybody cared enough, I bet an e-mail to PDs customer service would yield an answer. Maybe that canopy is still in service????????? alan

Maybe what the question about having winglets inboard was getting at is the concept of turbulators. Many crop dusting aircraft, for example, have little tabs along the top of the wing just back from the leading edge. The idea is to induce a little turbulance into the boundary layer of the airflow, that has the effect of delaying separation until a higher angle of attack is reached than would occur without them. I've even seen them added to a Piper Cub under an STC. Simply stated, turbulators allow a higher critical aoa before a wing stalls. They may not be pratical or effective on our parachutes, but I don't know if anyone has ever tested them on parachutes. Maybe if they were added to the VX 39 it could be landed at a slower speed. alan

I haven't been trying to do either. My initial post in this thread was thought out and relevant, as were several others. JP seemed to pretty much be discounting everything that had been posted with this: "K, forget it. Since no one really want's to anser the question at hand, I guess my attempt at a "discusion" kinda fell apart. Never mind the pro's of a TSO process, or the education to jumpers about what the TSO process actually involves." That was a little provocative and I responded to that. I don't know if it was his intent at the time, but it turned out to ultimately be a very good strategy based on many of the subsequent posts in this thread. alan

Yes, I think the "problem" lies more with the bureaucracy than with the concept of the TSO process. That is not to say that the TSO process should not be periodically reviewed and revamped when necessary, as with almost anything, it can usually be improved upon with time. But, I think that bureaucracy is resistant to change in the absence of some strong catalyst for change. I believe that is truly what JP has been trying to get at. alan

Exactly what in my statement would lead you to believe that? Running down? That is a little harsh to describe what i was attempting to do, but then this is the internet. I was being critical because he started a thread, had some good responses, and then chimed in with: "K, forget it. Since no one really want's to anser the question at hand, I guess my attempt at a "discusion" kinda fell apart. Never mind the pro's of a TSO process, or the education to jumpers about what the TSO process actually involves." I found the tone of that a little offensive, especially in view of the information and thoughts that had already been exchanged. So, "running down" was not my intent, I offerred a critique based on JPs obvious frustration at the responses, although the tone of my post was influenced by his tone. That is just human nature. Look at your own responses to me. Re-read my posts, including the first one. I did essay my views. That was my point. They are in my post , just not laid out nice and neat with a list of items called "pros" and another called "cons". There are quite a number other posts that do the same. JPs comments quoted above were rather flippant. So, before you hop on your big white horse and ride to JPs rescue, go back and read the meat of what I have posted. I explained my thoughts on why there is a TSO process and why I felt they wouldn't be eliminated, I even addressed the pro and con issue. I may be wrong, I may be right, you may agree, you may disagree, but what I posted was thought out and relevant to the topic, well at least until I had to start defending myself. alan

So the question was not really about doing away with the TSO's but rather about getting the FAA out of it. BTW, most any people in any job would like to do away with the aspects of it they don't like. That does not mean the powers that be will just do away with them because they are inconvenient or burdensome. Most higher level beaurocrats like to keep work under them. It keeps the budget healthy. I suggest you reread what I posted. I'm well aware of how it works and who is doing what. The FAA process takes time and has protocals. You will note I did say the industry and the FAA, putting the industry first. Well, you received several free thinking responses and then were ready to throw in the towel after Bill Booths post. Ummmmm.....Im trying to remember. Can you give me a hint? Much better. Did you know that the FAA has a new CSI (Customer Service Initiative) as part of its'new "Flight Plan" under director Blakey? It may go along way towards addressing many of the issues you have raised. Cut and paste that last paragraph to a new thread, it may generate a good discussion. alan

I believe he was as well. So was I in my response. what is your point? alan

There are quite a few thoughtful replies. The pros and cons are in them, just not laid out nice and neat in a tabular form. Get real. The TSO process imparts a measure of regulation in the design and manufacture of equipment that is intentionally dropped from aircraft. One obvious "con" is that without that measure of control, there is some increased likelyhood of injury or death to either the user or someone on the ground. That is not to say that current manufacturers would suddenly adopt a devil may care attitude. But, unless you can remove that single "con" from the premise, you are beating a dead horse. Also, one might ask, "What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" We can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! Maybe your question wasn't really about eliminating them, but having an agency other than the FAA regualte it. If so, then phrase the question more appropriately. If you really want a discussion that is intended to educate jumpers about the TSO process, then just write a post in the manner of "So you want to become a rigger." Lay out some information and let people dicuss it. Although I'm sure they weren't intended as such, your posts in this thread have imparted the flavor of trolls. You might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. Ummm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know. alan

I guess by now I've got nearly 1000 jumps on my Jedei, not sure cuz I quit counting a couple years ago. I mostly use it on demos now or on back to back jumps. At any rate, I ve found that nosing the canopy into the ground adds to the effect of the airlocks with the ground closing off the nose too. What has worked best for me is to pivot around after landing and at the same time, pull in both rear risers. This puts the canopy on the ground with the tail into the wind, the top to the ground, with the nose pointed downwind. In this attitude, the wind acts like your hand on a tube of tooth paste and helps "squeeze" the air out past the airlocks. The key is to not have too much pressure on the canopy because that is what causes the flap on the airlock to seal against the top skin. Work your way up to the canopy, coiling the lines as you go, and pick it up by the tail, giving it a few gentle shakes as you pick it up. This allows you to gently shake the remaining air out as you pick it up. As you said, standing on the bridle during all of this helps keep things under control as well. One other thing I've found over the years is that in 20 to 25 mph winds, the best way to control the canopy on the ground is to leave it on the ground. I have much more fun drinking beer in 25 mph winds than I do jumping. Prolly safer too. alan

Sorry, I'm not Phree, but have jumped both canopies. My Jedei 136 is #1121, DOM Aug '97. I wrote a rather extensive review of the Samurai for Brain a few years ago when he introduced it. The review is in a back issue of Skydiving Magazine. Your questions: Both canopies are high performance canopies. The Samurai is a refinement of the Jedei and is the result of the evolution of the canopy based on feebback from Jedei pilots. The canopies are not exceptionally fast, but are as fast or faster than comparable class canopies at similar wing loading. Stiletto comes to mind. My personal opinion is the Sam is a step ot two above a Stiletto in most aspects that I find appealling. Ground handling and packing are two notable exceptions. The turns on both are realtively fast, but a proficient pilot will enjoy either for a general purpose canpy. I can easily barrel roll my Jedei and had no problem with it on the Sam. My Jedei opens very nice. Soft and not an excessive snivel. It is less consistent than the Sam though. I like the Sam because it has great openings. Better than most of the current wave of "great" opening canopies. I say that because I don't care for the excessive and unneccessary snivel on some of the current favorites. I would not describe either canopy as a moderate elliptical. I think they both use the same planform yet, the "sweptwing" version of the Jedei. That may have chaged though. The glide is very good with the Sam's being a little better. I tought it was very close to as good as a Stiletto at the same loading. Flare is a matter of technique for a particular canopy. The Sam and Jedei both have an easy to finf sweet spot. Both are very good all through the range with a very nice shut down. The nod goes to the Sam by a small, but noticeable margin. Either canoipy is suitable for a more aggressive pilot. There is no jump in class between the two, but the Sam is the latest evolution of the Jedei and therefore you should expect it to be the "better" of the two since it employs the most current technology. You don't have to be an "aggressive" pilot to fly these canopies, but you should read and follow Brian's suggestions for wing loading, experience and skill. They are both high performance canopies. Which would I put someone with 200-400 jumps on? You should read and follow Brian's suggestions for wing loading, experience and skill. They are both high performance canopies. Check his web-site, his book, or call him. I can't answer that because I don't know your wing loading or skill level. At 1.4#/sq ft, or higher with less than 400 jumps, I would advise to think twice about it unless a very qualified and unbiased instructor recommended it based on "demonstrated "skills. Hope this helps. alan

As has been pointed out, the PIA has set the standards via the SAE and FAA. Now the standards will take a slightly more direct route, via the PIA and FAA. The real question is one of enforcement. We need an authority that, by law, can prescribe and enforce the standards to ensure the public safety, as I believe that is a basic tenent of a democratic society. We really need an authority that can regulate and enforce standards in the industry. Enforcement implies the power to impose penalties for failing to comply with standards that are established as law. Is privatizing it a better way than having governmental agency administer it? That debate can go on forever and I don't want to get sucked into it. I agree that the FAA can frequently apply the rules in confusing and conflicting ways. I can't imagine that any private authority would do any differently. Different people still have differring opinions, regardless of who there employer is. Terry point out in his post that the PIA committee took a considerable amount of time to work through issues. That would not change and PIA field inspectors would have interpretation issues just as the FAA FI's do. Are you really asking about saving money? If so, then I would suggest that it is too late. We have become "mainstream" and that means we are an industry and industry is driven by the profit motive. Big resort DZs, wind tunnels, bigger and faster aircraft, bigger gear manufacturers with big R&D budgets, employing ever higher technology, sponsorships, bigger events.....it all leads to more money. Economies of scale? They manage to keep the cost at a level the market will support. Several years ago our leadership embarked on a philosophy of mainstreaming the sport. I believe that that effort has been successful and it the continued direction. Was it good for the sport or bad? I don't know yet, but look at the question you posed and look deep into your motivation for asking it. I'll go now. I'm trying to choose colors for my new Infinity and have a lot a material to cover in that thread. Do you think you could talk a moderator into moving the posts that don't actually have a photo attached? You see, as a group, we tend to support all of the bullshit, so why would it make sense to get the FAA out of our gear? Sorry, couldn't help that one. alan

Some home made soft links need to be cut off. I've been reusing several sets that I made for several years now. alan