U.S. Army's New Square

[dpreguy 14]

kuai
Your theory of dropping equipment separately has been abandoned early on. It doesn't work. It didn't work. Germans did that, over and over, and found their troops either had to find their equipment containers while being shot at, or never found them. Island of Crete, (ultimately successful for them) was their biggest 'no equipment' disaster, and even the famously successful drop at Holland, many containers of what they needed were scattered and not available.
That lesson was learned the hard way. Gotta carry everything.

Also, the post or theory that this new parachute is a "square" is incorrect. Regardless of it's view from the top or side (square shape) it is a "round. Operating on the theory of cupping air, Shape is irrelevant.

[dpreguy 14]

Must strongly disagree with you on descent rate. Slower the better. Must carry ALL of your equipment. Germans learned the hard way you can't drop equipment separately.

I found the T-10 to be a dud. Descent rate is too high/fast. Weighed 180 lbs. Jumped with full equipment and an M 14 on left side at Fort Bragg and hit like a ton of bricks. All of our jumps were at night, so the "PLF is the answer" theory only worked when there was moonlight and when you could see the ground coming up. I never got injured, but the dz's there were clear and sometimes sandy.

I have heard these T 11's are capable of lower drops. Don't know that to be a fact.

[dpreguy 14]

Ouch. Saw the picture. Guess my theory that the lineover is all but eliminated is incorrect.

Anyhow, my opinion, is that the T 11 is vastly superior as an airborne drop parachute, due to it's lower descent rate and the slider.
(The T 11 reserve is pretty cool too. Has an orange ejector spring for the pilot chute, etc etc.)

[riggerrob 643]

...
The only solution is more square feet of fabric over-head.

Then we get into a rousing debate about whether those extra square feet should be round (T-10) or cross-shaped (AT-11) ........

I can fix that for you.
1) ...

2) ...

3) Utilize larger, proven, rounds to accomplish the above.

.......................................................................................

About 15 years ago both Bill Gargano and Manley Butler developed larger rounds for paratroopers.
Gargano's canopy was only adopted by a few Rocky Mountain Special Forces Groups while Butler's HX 600 was largely ignored.

[rifleman 70]

British Army Irvin GQ LLP Mk1

40ft nominal diameter
24 gore
deployment speed 130 KEAS (optimal) - 150 KEAS
stability +/- 5 degrees
descent rate 18.5 fps
Min deployment height 250 feet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of4E-2fSeWs

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[rjblake 1]

Indeed, the British chute has a slower descent rate and more fabric. Also, the SF-10A has an even lower descent rate of 10.5-15ft/sec at sea level and the Saviac Mk6 13-16ft/sec with a 350lbs load. In my time in the airborne, I didn't consider landing with a full load of kit a problem; but I only weighed around 170lbs at the time, was young and fit. Heck, nobody said life in the airborne was ever going to be easy and that's what we accepted. I'll still stick with being on the ground quicker in a combat situation than floating in like a butterfly and making a nice target for someone to shoot at.

[rifleman 70]

Yes but the slower descent rate is offset and compensated for by the lower deployment altitude so airborne troops will only spend the same or less time under canopy in a combat situation.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[riggerrob 643]

..... and the old lineover mals are pretty much eliminated because of the slider. ....
...................................................

The traditional way to eliminate line-over malfunctions (aka partial inversions) is to sew anti-inversion netting below the skirt.
I only have 70 jumps on rounds but suffered 2 inversion malfunctions. The first was on a Canadian Army free fall rig. The canopy completely inverted along the centre-line so that the drive windows were at the front. The pilot-chute and sleeve hung INSIDE the canopy! Steering was reversed, but I still managed a soft landing beside the bowl.
My second inversion was on a German Army T-10, S/L. The canopy only suffered a partial inversion and straightened itself out before I looked up. This time I landed softly in a snow drift.
Neither canopy had anti-inversion netting. Both canopies suffered so many dozen small burn holes that they went straight to the trash can!

[5318008 0]

rjblake

Indeed, the British chute has a slower descent rate and more fabric. Also, the SF-10A has an even lower descent rate of 10.5-15ft/sec at sea level and the Saviac Mk6 13-16ft/sec with a 350lbs load. In my time in the airborne, I didn't consider landing with a full load of kit a problem; but I only weighed around 170lbs at the time, was young and fit. Heck, nobody said life in the airborne was ever going to be easy and that's what we accepted. I'll still stick with being on the ground quicker in a combat situation than floating in like a butterfly and making a nice target for someone to shoot at.

Don't you airborne guys have a lot of gear in a ditty bag that you hang down below you on a rope, so that it hits the ground first, thereby taking some of the weight off the canopy for your own landing? Does that actually allow the canopy to slow down a little in that last second before your feet hit earth?

( o Y o )

[rjblake 1]

5318008

Don't you airborne guys have a lot of gear in a ditty bag that you hang down below you on a rope, so that it hits the ground first, thereby taking some of the weight off the canopy for your own landing? Does that actually allow the canopy to slow down a little in that last second before your feet hit earth?

Once out the door, canopy check is done and you are sure your buddy isn't under you, release your gear which is suspended by a 15ft line connected to harness that lands before you do - not much time to allow descent rate to change; but provides a good anchor when landing in high winds.

rifleman

Yes but the slower descent rate is offset and compensated for by the lower deployment altitude so airborne troops will only spend the same or less time under canopy in a combat situation.

Agreed; but jumping lower with a T-11 - no thanks. Minimum deployment is spec'd at 500ft, the Saviac at 400ft, and the GQ LLP at 250ft. I'd go with the latter 2 or an MC1 before a T-11. Luckily I'm no longer in a position where the decisions of what I jump are made for me :)