PDA

View Full Version : Airborne Test Directorate Puts New Parachute Through Its Paces


BMT (RIP)
06-03-2013, 09:45
http://aero-news.net/aNNTicker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=bb88399d-6d0f-4ba0-8659-808f765c6e75

BMT

MtnGoat
06-03-2013, 19:29
Thanks for the Post BMT

CSB
06-03-2013, 21:32
Damn -- some duty assignments -- "pack, jump, repeat".

So how do I get a gig like that?

18C4V
06-03-2013, 23:24
I would have liked to get that gig!!!!

EMase
06-07-2013, 22:27
As a rigger, I can only hope that this systems reserve parachute is easier to rig than the one currently in use! ;)

Papa Zero Three
06-07-2013, 23:37
As a rigger, I can only hope that this systems reserve parachute is easier to rig than the one currently in use! ;)

It is incredibly easier to pack as well as close this system. The trickiest part is stacking the bridle neatly on top of the freebag and holding it there while positioning the pilot chute on the freebag and routing the closing loop. Once that is done, you can actually close flaps #1 and #2 at the same time once you have your technique down, same goes for flaps #3 and #4.

The_Mentalist
06-20-2013, 07:02
Is the objective to only replace the freefall gear or a total replacement? I don't see ram air canopies as being appropriate for mass jumps. Regular airborne ops will continue with round chutes? Right? I know, stupid question from a super leg, but with all the other changes in the 30 years since I was AD, it wouldn't surprise me if some pentagon pencil pusher got a wild hair.

Papa Zero Three
06-20-2013, 10:48
Is the objective to only replace the freefall gear or a total replacement? I don't see ram air canopies as being appropriate for mass jumps. Regular airborne ops will continue with round chutes? Right? I know, stupid question from a super leg, but with all the other changes in the 30 years since I was AD, it wouldn't surprise me if some pentagon pencil pusher got a wild hair.

This for the MC-4 freefall systems within SF and those regular Army units that have freefall systems on their TO&E. Conventional airborne units and or non SF pax will continue to use either the T-11 and or MC-6 system. No pentagon pencil pushing wild hairs, if anything, this has been a years long endevour of the end user pushing the rock up hill the whole way.

The_Mentalist
06-22-2013, 09:27
This for the MC-4 freefall systems within SF and those regular Army units that have freefall systems on their TO&E. Conventional airborne units and or non SF pax will continue to use either the T-11 and or MC-6 system. No pentagon pencil pushing wild hairs, if anything, this has been a years long endevour of the end user pushing the rock up hill the whole way.

How do the T-11 and MC-6 compare to the T10B and MC1-1? Tose were the chutes in use when I was in. I didn't jump these, but spent tons of time on the DZ and green ramp issuing them and picking them back up. Of course, I also got to watch the jumps and hear all the complaints about them. I jumped ram airs with the GBSPC until I got injured and grounded (in jump school).

Papa Zero Three
06-22-2013, 10:15
How do the T-11 and MC-6 compare to the T10B and MC1-1? Tose were the chutes in use when I was in. I didn't jump these, but spent tons of time on the DZ and green ramp issuing them and picking them back up. Of course, I also got to watch the jumps and hear all the complaints about them. I jumped ram airs with the GBSPC until I got injured and grounded (in jump school).

Both the T-11 and MC-6 are vast improvements over the previous systems. There is an increase in performance and or All up weight capacity of the newer systems. I have heard grumbling from some riggers/jumpers but in most cases it can be attributed to having to do something different than they previously accustomed to doing(packing step/technique/method). In fact, most of the issues are self inflicted by Ft Lee. A good example is the T-11 packing manual. The mfgr manual has very specific instructions about certain steps (and the hazard graphic symbol associated with failing to follow it) but Ft Lee in the writing of the Army manual made some changes despite what the mfgr manual states and omitted the importance of a few critical steps. The results were the accidents we saw not long ago and the subsequent Safety stand down and review of the TM and changing it to reflect what the mfgr recommended in the first place.

The MC-6/SF 10 is a very agile canopy compared to the -1, it was originally designed as a smoke jumper canopy. Jumper training and error are two big parts with this canopy. It requires a timed flare much like a square canopy does to slow it down to an acceptable speed and impact forces and isn't something for use with large groups of people, that's what the T-11 is for. It's a good canopy for dropping troops at higher MSL altitudes into tight/small areas.

Both systems, despite any of the issues they may have encountered to date, are improvements over the legacy systems and improve jumper safety and performance. There are plenty of YouTube videos made by PEO soldier on the improvements of both systems over the previous model that can give you specifics.

CV_
07-16-2013, 09:58
Does anyone know how heavy these chutes are?

Papa Zero Three
07-16-2013, 17:55
Does anyone know how heavy these chutes are?

The RA-1 is 48-50 lbs.It was the lightest system out of all the systems that were in the consideration.