howardwhite 6 #1 September 21, 2009 A friend (who's still jumping) recently showed me an envelope of old pictures from his 1953 Airborne School days. I guess most are stock photos -- the kind you would buy at the PX to send home to mom and dad -- but they're fun. A few now, more later. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 1 #2 September 21, 2009 Howard, What sizr are those canopies? They look like 28 ft. Those guys must have been really tough to survive landings with equipment under such a small canopy. I wonder what the injury numbers were.Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #3 September 21, 2009 I wonder if para-troops were still jumping the old T-7 canopies back in 1953? I guess the openning shock was brutal. That's a great picture of a C-119. I had around ten jumps out of them. The army was still jumping them in the early 70's..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjump 0 #4 September 21, 2009 In the first photo-"Two Out" it looks like the paratrooprer needed the use of the belly reserve. Nice shot of a "Mae-West". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #5 September 21, 2009 Back in those days, paratroopers were smaller, the ground was softer and they carried less "light-weight" equipment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 6 #6 September 21, 2009 Some more. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lodestar 0 #7 September 21, 2009 Thank you Howard, nice group of pictures. It was a curiosity why the one parachute on the exit string was white and the others OD. Leads me to wonder if there were any white T-10's out there. It looked a bit large for a reserve. Could have been the standard 28' maybe? Have you any wisdom to add on that one picture? And, by the by, I just wanted to send a nice "attaboy" over to you for your consistently good and unusual posts and incredible pictures of those days and of present, you certainly have a wealth of information and experience and are a wonderful asset to the board and us curious lurkers. I'd like to thank you for that..... Tuna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 6 #8 September 21, 2009 I'll ask the guy who gave them to me -- though as it was 56 years ago, he might not remember.But he's still an active jumper and has good gear. He made a couple of Otter jumps from 13,5 Sunday. (I did, too.) Last couple of today's scans attached. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim_Hooper 4 #9 September 21, 2009 QuoteThat's a great picture of a C-119. Uh, I'm no expert, but that looks like a C-82. Where's Jack Gregory?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 6 #10 September 21, 2009 Here's a C-82 Packet picture. It was a flawed precursor to the C-119. Does look like my picture. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #11 September 22, 2009 You're right. I thought there was something funny looking about that C-119. I guess I never heard of a C-82 until now....Shows you what I know about airplanes....Can anyone give us a history lesson on this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 6 #12 September 22, 2009 From that sometimes useful source, Wikipedia. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poppenhager 1 #13 September 22, 2009 Yes,they were T-7 28' trill canopys.the T-10 came into service in 1/54 with a few jumps on them in late 1953.The T-7 was the hardest opening shocks I ever had in my 50 years of jumping out of airplanes.And the aircraft are C-82's which were replaced by the C119 in 1950 at start of the Korean War.The C-82 was named the flying coffin because of all the crashes they had . The 82 only had 2000 hp and the 119 had 3000hp with G model having 3600hp (per engine) POP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJack 1 #14 September 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat's a great picture of a C-119. Uh, I'm no expert, but that looks like a C-82. Where's Jack Gregory?! Right here Hoop! Good catch. C-82 Packet is correct. At a glance it is hard to tell them apart. The key indicator for me is the different windshields. The C-82 has 4 flat panes across the front. The C-119 has two larger ones and a different angle. I couldn’t find a good enough photo of the C-119 to see if it has the same forward swept wings between the engine nacelles and the fuselage like the C-82. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 6 #15 September 23, 2009 Does this help? HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJack 1 #16 September 24, 2009 Quote Does this help? HW Yes it does Howard. Thanks! And I need all the help I can get! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lapster 0 #17 March 9, 2010 ...and you know why they hurt too poppenhager...28' flat circulars NOT in a deployment device of any kind (i.e. D-Bag etc.), but rather the pack tray was actually laced closed with quarter inch cotton in a big 'ole "U" as opposed to four pack tray flaps held closed in center of pack tray. Add to all this C-82's and C-119's (my aircraft during Jump School) flying along at near terminal velocity during exit. Yeah baby...its a wonder I only have CSS now. *** Here hold my beer while I kiss your girlfriend Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
