dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Dan Briggs) (06/27/91)
I'm one of the new generation of student weenies who has never jumped anything rougher than a medium sized ram-air canopy. I can probably borrow a Para-Commander when my urge to try some of "the old ways" becomes overwhelming. Still, the canopies that I really find interesting are some of the old triangle exotics. The Thunderbow looks interesting. The Paradactyl looks more than just interesting. Perhaps terrifying is a better word? Poynter's handbook claims that it has a performance approaching that of a ram-air canopy, but it just doesn't *look* like it has enough fabric! From the photo, and one of Boenish's films it looks like the whole canopy would fit in a good sized throw-out pocket. I exaggerate of course, but it really looks small. Has anyone ever jumped one? Do you flare it? If the performance is as good as Poynter claims, why aren't they a more serious competitor to the ram-air canopies simply based on a tiny pack volume? -- Daniel Briggs (dbriggs@nrao.edu) New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801 (505) 835-7391
mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.121456.16862@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>, dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Dan Briggs) writes: > I'm one of the new generation of student weenies who has never jumped > anything rougher than a medium sized ram-air canopy. I can probably (stuff deleted) > looks interesting. The Paradactyl looks more than just interesting. > Perhaps terrifying is a better word? Poynter's handbook claims that > it has a performance approaching that of a ram-air canopy, but it just > doesn't *look* like it has enough fabric! From the photo, and one of > Boenish's films it looks like the whole canopy would fit in a good > sized throw-out pocket. I exaggerate of course, but it really looks > small. Has anyone ever jumped one? Do you flare it? If the > performance is as good as Poynter claims, why aren't they a more > serious competitor to the ram-air canopies simply based on a tiny pack > volume? From what I remember, it weighed about 6-6.5 pounds. One of the reasons it became 'popular' was it's small volume. It was on the leading edge of 'smaller is better'. Once again, relying on memory, it was built by Jim Handbury. There was even a 'double-keel dactyl'. Performance was high. They were flared for landing. The pack volume wasn't as small as today's squares. I've seen one jumped from the New River Gorge Bridge. They weren't that popular because of _reliability_ problems. They were called 'scare-adactyls' for that reason. I believe too many suspension lines going to too many attachment points. Mike Spurgeon Internet: mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
mills@granite.ma30.bull.com (John Luke Mills) (06/29/91)
Beleive it or not, I own a Brand NEW, in the sense it has never been jumped, Paradactyl. I beleive it packs up smaller than my Fury. I will check on this and its weight this weekend. It is tiny. Almost half of the pack volume is the suspension lines. My older freinds who were at Orange about the time the experimenting was going on claim there were two problems. Not opening at all was one. A bigger problem was opening to much to fast. I am thinking of jumping mine when my reserve is due for a repack and opening sub-terminal. There was a jumper at Pepperell who use to jump one regulary. He didn't seem to have any problems. The performance was like a very slow square, but with a higher rate of decent. My personal theory on why they got a bad reputation is they were one of the first canopies that could kill you if you srewed up too close the ground. From what I can tell, if you stall a Paradactyl, it will colapse or do other vilolent stuff, not unlike the hotter squares. The Paradactyl was WAY ahead of its time, and it reputation was based on experience with relatively docile round canopies. --
rand@skydiver.Eng.Sun.COM (Iconoclast at large) (06/29/91)
The last time I saw a Paradactyl was about 4-5 years ago at Freak Bros. A guy from our DZ was jumping it because the DZ owner would never let him use it. The guy who was jumping it was named Mark Brinkman and affectionately known as Wierd Mark. At the Freak Bros. on his last jump, he hooked it up backwards (on purpose) so that he could film people flying behind him. This was the first year they had the C-130 and there was a lot of traffic around the landing area. About 300' above the ground he flew into/backed into a fairly inexperienced jumper. The Paradactyl collapsed around the inexperienced guy and kinda made his canopy start to spin which I guess freaked him out...so he cut away resulting in a double fatality. I'm not blaming the Paradactyl, it was just the last time I ever saw one. Rand
yzarn@lhdsy1.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun27.121456.16862@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Dan Briggs) writes: >I'm one of the new generation of student weenies who has never jumped >anything rougher than a medium sized ram-air canopy. I can probably >borrow a Para-Commander when my urge to try some of "the old ways" >becomes overwhelming. Still, the canopies that I really find >interesting are some of the old triangle exotics. The Thunderbow >looks interesting. The Paradactyl looks more than just interesting. >Perhaps terrifying is a better word? Poynter's handbook claims that >it has a performance approaching that of a ram-air canopy, but it just >doesn't *look* like it has enough fabric! From the photo, and one of >Boenish's films it looks like the whole canopy would fit in a good >sized throw-out pocket. I exaggerate of course, but it really looks >small. Has anyone ever jumped one? Do you flare it? If the >performance is as good as Poynter claims, why aren't they a more >serious competitor to the ram-air canopies simply based on a tiny pack >volume? > I have never jumped a 'dactyl but witnessed lots of jumps on them because the then-named Vision Team (later known as Coors) used them for a while back at Perris Valley. They did pack small, they were quite performant, and you flared them to land them and I saw lots of stand up landings but not as nice as ram-airs though. If memory serves well, it took the members of Vision a *while* before they learned to pack them in such a way that they stopped malfunctionning. These were non-forgiving parachutes which is probably why they had a limited succes and then went to the Museums! -- Philip Yzarn de Louraille Internet: yzarn@chevron.com Research Support Division Unix & Open Systems Chevron Information & Technology Co. Tel: (213) 694-9232 P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446 Fax: (213) 694-7709
yzarn@lhdsy1.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) (06/30/91)
In article <16011@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> rand@skydiver.Eng.Sun.COM (Iconoclast at large) writes: >above the ground he flew into/backed into a fairly >inexperienced jumper. The Paradactyl collapsed around >the inexperienced guy and kinda made his canopy start >to spin which I guess freaked him out...so he cut away >resulting in a double fatality. > >I'm not blaming the Paradactyl, it was just the last >time I ever saw one. Maybe I'm weird but this is a rather funny story! Thank you for sharing it! (with apologies to the participants of that jump. ;-) ) -- Philip Yzarn de Louraille Internet: yzarn@chevron.com Research Support Division Unix & Open Systems Chevron Information & Technology Co. Tel: (213) 694-9232 P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446 Fax: (213) 694-7709