Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
I depends if you connect the static line or not... there is a recent version called the MC-6 that replaced the MC-1 (both are 'steerable' - after a fashion) ... these parachutes have panels removed and spill air from the back to provide some forward propulsion.. before you land you turn into the prevailing ground wind and the two opposing forces 'can' help make the landing feel quite soft .. The panels have pro's and cons as there have been accidents where parts of the parachute material can 'fold' through the open panel which can be troublesome. I 'flew' a paracommander (a heavily modified version of a t10) that had several panels removed at the rear and they behaved very nicely... and the landing was pretty good ... although nothing like the stuff they use now
And here's one for some serious pucker factor... If the pilot had swallowed a lump of coal before pulling this landing, I'm sure he'd have a nice diamond for the wife afterward.
Landing a C-130 on the USS Forrestal... No tail hook or arrester gear for landings, no catapult for take off, just skill, guts, and an aircraft that keeps doing things the original designers would probably faint at the thought of.
The test pilots made 29 touch and goes during testing, and 21 landings/takeoffs. The pilot, LT (later RADM) James Flatley III, USN, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his participation.
Landing a C-130 on the USS Forrestal... No tail hook or arrester gear for landings, no catapult for take off, just skill, guts, and an aircraft that keeps doing things the original designers would probably faint at the thought of.
The test pilots made 29 touch and goes during testing, and 21 landings/takeoffs. The pilot, LT (later RADM) James Flatley III, USN, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his participation.
Most of my 319 free falls were logged on a 'Paracommander' with 36 holes and slots total. It had a forward airspeed of 8-10 mph, slow compared to the rectangular sport chutes of today. Rough on opening, but very reliable. I knew that the T10s had been modified with slots, but didn't know they were referred to as 'Paracommanders'.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Hercs have gone everywhere and done everything. They're a remarkably good design. Just so damned handy.
Here's the writeup (thanks, Wikipedia) on one that was stolen:
No pics available of poor old 63-7789, but here's her barely-older sistership, 63-7788:
Here's the writeup (thanks, Wikipedia) on one that was stolen:
No pics available of poor old 63-7789, but here's her barely-older sistership, 63-7788:
I've often wondered just how hard it would've been to fit a tail hook to a Herc for regular carrier operations. In the video, the Herc was able to land with a 13 ton payload without a tail hook. I wonder just how much weight the arrester systems on a Forrestal, Nimitz, or Gerald Ford-class carrier can safely stop.
I dont think they were called paracommanders... the Toronto Parachute Club years ago had "T10"s with two complete panels removed at about '5' and '7' for students and they also loaned paracommander(s) for those that completed their static line training descents. The 'paracommander' had little winglet arrangements and the cutout panels...but it looked to me like a 'highly modified' t10 (ie 'round' canopy) not like the flying wings we see today. I dont recall the opening being any more abrupt than the T10..... (to add....but then I think I had about 1% of your 'flight' time!)
Last edited:
Back in the 70's and 80's when I was an active skydiver, instructor and rigger we used 28 ft military surplus chutes for students and they were modified with a few lower panels cut out for steering. The rate of descent was a little higher than the military T-10's which were either 32' or 35' (can't remember which). None of the clubs I was associated with in Europe or here at home used a modified T-10 for students but I guess it could have been done. The 28 ft surplus chutes we used worked well and were readily available as they were standard issue for fighter pilots and time expired after a certain time and had lots of life left.
The Para-Commander was a purpose built rig made for skydivers. I bought a new one in the early 70's and they had been around for awhile before that. It was about 26' and the apex (crown) was pulled down slightly making it somewhat flat on the top. Many slots for steering and stabilizer panels on both sides below the skirt bottom. They were the high performance chutes of the time back then.
In the early 70's the Para Plane Cloud came out and I was quick to get my hands on one. It was the square ram air chute that you see today. The opening shock was severe to unbelievable at first and it was common to lose a watch, goggles or even a helmet on opening. Mods came along fairly quickly and a slider was later developed to slow down the opening. I did the test jumps in 74 for the Para Plane's that were issued to the Sky Hawks and then wrote the packing manual. Those were my first military jumps and the Sky Hawks had to get authorization for me to do that. Not many Airforce guys were jumping out military aircraft in those days.
Fun days back then.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
The F-102 was the pointiest thing ever made by American industry.
Its designed purpose was bomber interception. It had a pretty damned solid climb rate, and was happiest at altitude.
So of course, when the US involved themselves in Vietnam, the F-102, a plane designed specifically to intercept bombers at altitude, found a new role - ground attack:
It's like using a top fuel dragster to pull a plow. What were they thinking?
Its designed purpose was bomber interception. It had a pretty damned solid climb rate, and was happiest at altitude.
So of course, when the US involved themselves in Vietnam, the F-102, a plane designed specifically to intercept bombers at altitude, found a new role - ground attack:
It's like using a top fuel dragster to pull a plow. What were they thinking?
The F-102 was the pointiest thing ever made by American industry.
Its designed purpose was bomber interception. It had a pretty damned solid climb rate, and was happiest at altitude.
So of course, when the US involved themselves in Vietnam, the F-102, a plane designed specifically to intercept bombers at altitude, found a new role - ground attack:
It's like using a top fuel dragster to pull a plow. What were they thinking?
When life gives you lemons -- make lemonade.....
Result of 1950's military planning of attacking and (hopefully)defending cities and installations from nuclear attack and then realizing your forces cannot attack smaller targets with conventional weapons on the battlefield and can't dogfight closeup with nimble light fighters.
F-105, F-104, B-58...etc
F-105, F-104, B-58...etc
Last edited:
People blamed the equipment however the fault needs to fall squarely on the shoulders of the planners. If they prepared for that eventual possibility and decided not to use the equipment on hand then the architectures' got cold feet. Use as designed.
Bubba Yugga
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Midwestern Ontario
The F102 was the failure. The F106 introduced the wasp waist to allow true supersonic performance. It was the one that took the interceptor role for NORAD.
The barely supersonic slab sided F102 was relegated to other duties if only to spare it an early trip to the boneyard.
The barely supersonic slab sided F102 was relegated to other duties if only to spare it an early trip to the boneyard.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
The F106 fleet, after nearly twenty years of service, was converted to either museum pieces, or delivered to NAS Atlantis...
(thus negating the benefit of every aluminum can I have ever turned in for recycling), or converted to QF-106A drones:
Viking funeral:
(thus negating the benefit of every aluminum can I have ever turned in for recycling), or converted to QF-106A drones:
Viking funeral:
IIRC, the military adapted T-10 chutes by cutting 'TU' slots to give some forward airspeed and controllability. Moot since military drops are done much lower to minimize scattering of sticks and exposure to enemy fire.
Civilian 'TU's I recall had a five gore separation and I had a pal whose flat circular Lo-Po (low porosity) canopy had a 7 gore separation. We tried it on a normal rip stop canopy and it was not a success, resulting in pretty hard landings if you weighed over 150 lbs. I took one with me to Germany and the Rhine Army Parachute Association condemned it on the spot.
They also condemned the 'one shot' capewells some Canadian jumpers showed up with which were a modification of the regular capewells to release the risers as soon as you popped the safety covers! That possibly saved a few lives!
Since their instructors were all Brit Paras and graduates of the French Para school at Pau and the free fall centre at Chalon-sur-Soane, I wasn't going to argue. You might recall a Picture of the Duke of Edinburgh speaking to a Para equipped for HALO with an oxygen mask. He was a Royal Engineer Corporal at the time who became RAPA Chief Instructor at Sennelager during my time there.
The Paracommander was made of Lo-Po fabric, the apex pulled down into the canopy which supposedly generated more pressure towards the slots. The Brits would not allow it to be used by 'dope ropers', relegating it to those doing over 10 seconds delays in order to achieve terminal velocity, which they thought necessary for best deployment.
My recollection is that at terminal velocity or when emerging from a "max track" trying to get to the desired opening point, the opening shock was noticeable. Many times I looked up to see my feet above my head, little white stars dancing before my eyes .....
Civilian 'TU's I recall had a five gore separation and I had a pal whose flat circular Lo-Po (low porosity) canopy had a 7 gore separation. We tried it on a normal rip stop canopy and it was not a success, resulting in pretty hard landings if you weighed over 150 lbs. I took one with me to Germany and the Rhine Army Parachute Association condemned it on the spot.
They also condemned the 'one shot' capewells some Canadian jumpers showed up with which were a modification of the regular capewells to release the risers as soon as you popped the safety covers! That possibly saved a few lives!
Since their instructors were all Brit Paras and graduates of the French Para school at Pau and the free fall centre at Chalon-sur-Soane, I wasn't going to argue. You might recall a Picture of the Duke of Edinburgh speaking to a Para equipped for HALO with an oxygen mask. He was a Royal Engineer Corporal at the time who became RAPA Chief Instructor at Sennelager during my time there.
The Paracommander was made of Lo-Po fabric, the apex pulled down into the canopy which supposedly generated more pressure towards the slots. The Brits would not allow it to be used by 'dope ropers', relegating it to those doing over 10 seconds delays in order to achieve terminal velocity, which they thought necessary for best deployment.
My recollection is that at terminal velocity or when emerging from a "max track" trying to get to the desired opening point, the opening shock was noticeable. Many times I looked up to see my feet above my head, little white stars dancing before my eyes .....
Last edited:
