fundgh 0 #26 March 4, 2003 I used to be in the piercing industry and we made really cool stuff out of Titanium. Bright colors, fades, rainbow, whatever...It is a little costly, but when you are spending a cool 4 grand on your rig, what's another couple hundred?...FUN FOR ALL! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #27 March 4, 2003 Quote Titanium and niobium both can be anodized very nicely I apologize, you are correct. Now go ahead and get your pocket book out and just keep writing zeros after a 9 until you run out of room. You guys have got to remember, you're not just paying for the process, but for the certification fees and for the marketing and...oh yeah, PROFIT, forgot about that....Titanium, come on... BTW- Powder Costing is no good, it'll chip off and wear too quickly with metal on metal contact... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #28 March 4, 2003 '02 FLSTFI Pearl White FLSTC Exhaust w/ baffles removed Screaming Eagle stage 1 intake Power Commander IIIr FI/timing computer Yeah, and to keep it on topic, it has anodized blue mirrors and I am in the process of putting anodized blue button in the screw heads. Someday all hoses will be braided blue as well.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #29 March 4, 2003 So how much does TSO approval cost? That seems to be the variable everyone is unsure of. I was a hardcore mt. biker before starting skydiving. There are a lot of titanium parts available that are not any less complicated and often bigger than rig hardware. Heck there are whole bike frames out of titanium. So are there any advantages to titanium? I now it is strong, but it is brittle. Would the advantages be worth TSOing it? If so, realisticly, what are the costs involved?-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #30 March 4, 2003 QuoteQuote Titanium and niobium both can be anodized very nicely I apologize, you are correct. Now go ahead and get your pocket book out and just keep writing zeros after a 9 until you run out of room. You guys have got to remember, you're not just paying for the process, but for the certification fees and for the marketing and...oh yeah, PROFIT, forgot about that....Titanium, come on... . I didn't suggest it was practical, just pointed out your error.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 7 #31 March 4, 2003 The hardware it's self isn't TSO'd, neither are any of the other components. It's the entire system or if needed just a part of it that has to obtain TSO approval along with the process to build it. A rig manufacturer can use just about anything they care to in rig construction as long as it is within the operational limits of the approval being sought. Having said this, manufacturers would have to re-certify their equipment in order to utilize this new hardware. This is a very expensive and time consuming process. The real issue here, is the forge companies themselves. There is not enough of a profit margin in the civilian industry to justify the expense of designing, testing, marketing and forging colored hardware. Building "approved " equipment is a very expensive pastime, you should try it sometime. I did. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #32 March 5, 2003 I sent an e-mail to Aggie @ Sunpath. Asking about other metals. He replied: "We have looked into different metals especially titanium, this is very expensive. As for aluminum it is very hard to produce in the strength and durability that is required. Still at this time we find stainless steel to be the best, it is easy to produce the standard that we require. Also stainless is better on the environment, another reason why stainless is our standard hardware."Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #33 March 5, 2003 Quote So how much does TSO approval cost? That seems to be the variable everyone is unsure of. That's a big variable as well. Most of the expense is tied up in drop testing (once you've finished all the initial R&D of course = $$$$). We did confidence drops on the Viper, about 8 of them, and I think it ran us about $3000. Now, let me clarify this: The owner of Trident H&C also owns a DZ and aircraft. We did bring in a King Air to get the speeds we wanted, but regardless doing anything with an aircraft is expensive. Costs can vary based off a bunch of stuff. I, too, was a Mt. Biker before I got into skydiving...but think about how many Mt. Bikers there are compared to skydivers. When you have a million+ person market, it makes spreading out costs much more realistic. In skydiving, we have 30,000 or so registered jumpers. How many of those are active? Of those that are active, how many are buying gear this year? Of those, how many are going to buy new gear? Of those, how many are going to buy any given rig? The numbers don't line up real well, but the cost-recovery balance is way out of whack when you start looking at major undertakings like introducing new materials to a TSOd item (like a harness using new materials). We're such a small industry, we basically rely on the leavings of other (ie - hardware used in other applications or by the military) in order to make our products. This is not only the case, but ask BillBooth about trying to defray costs on custom built hardware, he's been there and done that...it's mostly ugly.I keep falling back on this, but if the military hasn't switched the stuff they use, there is probably a reason...and they've got tons of money to burn and lots of rigs to buy! Hell, they keep certain companies funded all by themselves! Why do you think CPS came into existence? There's money in them thar' gov'ments! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #34 March 6, 2003 QuoteI keep falling back on this, but if the military hasn't switched the stuff they use, there is probably a reason If the rest of the industry thought like this, then we'd all still be jumping T-10s, belly reserves with capwells. Its expensive, yes, but I disagree with your logic, especially since it has been proven wrong more then a few times by innovators in the skydiving industry.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 March 6, 2003 QuoteIts expensive, yes, but I disagree with your logic, especially since it has been proven wrong more then a few times by innovators in the skydiving industry. My reply to this is: look at your rig, and find piece of hardware on it other that the closing pin for the main that was purpouse built for the sport skydiving market. I'll bet you have trouble doing it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #36 March 6, 2003 Bill Booth created the 3-rings, someone else came up with BOC, the skyhook (not on the rig *yet*) was Bill Booth's. Ram air canopies wasn't a military thing, nor was cross braced canopies (I know the guy that had the original pantent on that). I'm sure there is more, that I'm leaving out.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #37 March 6, 2003 Well, I bet the 3-rings count, maybe the RSL clip, maybe the silver reserve handle. Anyway, I see your point, but I also see Dave's and I also see rigging65's. But, I still question a few things. As I see it this is divided: a) strength of anodized materials b) cost of anodized material itself c) cost of TSOing anodized material Everyone keeps going, A is okay, but B is not, C is okay, but A is not, but B is. It appears that at least in some materials there is plenty of strength, either colored nickel or titanium. What would these cost? hence item B. Everyone keeps throwing TSOing up as the objection. Didn't this have to be done with stainless? If so, what were the profit margins there? I am not insisting that this profitable, sometimes things just aren't. I am just curious about some numbers. Obviously stainless is a big seller, would anodized cost a lot more? As for the military, I think that is flawed logic. The are interested in neither customization or maximum performance. They are interested in the apex between performance and price. Sometimes consumers want products beyond that apex. That is what drives most industries.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #38 March 6, 2003 Another thing to think about is that the cost to set the equipment up to do just the RW8's is going to be about 10k based on my experiences in machining customized parts. How much more of that cost could be passed onto the jumpers in addition to the actual material? sould you be willing to pay $600 more to a rig to get custom colored parts? Thats about the minimum I could see the companies passing the charges on to the jumper for. Ram Airs were also fueled by the military seeking a gliding canopy for SF units too, don't forget about those. French Links (RSL Clips) are used in other applications other then skydiving, jumpers just borrowed the clip in this case.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #39 March 6, 2003 The idea of a RSL (not the clip) was a civilian idea.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
floormonkey 0 #40 March 6, 2003 It's my understanding that French links are Rapide links, so called because they were made by a French company, Maillion-Rapide (I may have the spelling wrong.) RSL , or the Steven's system, is something else entirely, isn't it? edit: that was supposed to reply to Phreezone, not aggiedave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
floormonkey 0 #41 March 6, 2003 PPMII, p.108 The more common connector link today is the Rapide link or French Connector called "Quick Link by the Maillon-Rapide company" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #42 March 6, 2003 Would stainless have to be re-TSO'd if an coating was applied over it and the process was know not to change the physical properties of stainless?? If it doesn't then the following should be true: Quote How about once the customer has paid the down he or she receives the hardware their rig will get and its up to them to have it plated or powder coated in a timely manner and in a process that does not effect the hardware's strength, then the customer ships the plated parts back to the manufacturer for assembly of their rig? --VectorBoy(Glen) If the container company wants a few more weeks for production because of it it wouldn't be a problem with me. --Sam--Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #43 March 6, 2003 Quote Would stainless have to be re-TSO'd if an coating was applied over it and the process was know not to change the physical properties of stainless?? Who's going to do the research and spend the money to see if this is true? What company out there is willing to take the liability to trust numbers that come from another industry? Someone else posted a $600 cost option. Is the market willing to absorb these costs on a scale that will actually provide a profit to the Mfg.? Can anyone guarantee it...or even show evidence that it MIGHT work out??? I understand the risk-to-reward scale, but I think it's also very close to the Stupid Business Decision-to-Bankrupt scale. This is a pretty huge gamble. You've got to put the money out up-front then hope to re-coup it later on...anyone from the Gates family want a job at our company?? The argument that we'd still be jumping T-10s and belly mounts if we let the military do all the development is also silly. The military has done lots and lots of work with Ram-airs, true not HP stuff, but they've given the sport industry lots of ideas to work with. We just run with ideas that look good and modify them into other designs as we go. Very few things (that are cost intensive) have come purely from the skydiving industry. Most the examples I saw given for pure skydiving ideas are truly wonderful ideas, but no one was out a life savings if they didn't sell. I would even argue that the 3-ring wasn't a pure skydiving invention. It was a modification of a design found outside the industry that was (masterfully) reworked into a usable product for our sport...but, unless I'm very wrong, it was a workable design out in the world first (you know, the world were there's real $$ available). IMO, I just don't think the consumer is willing to foot the bill for what it's going to cost to get into using a new material for Rings. Now, we're just a little, tiny company working out a new design, but I know we couldn't even begin to front the costs. Too bad, it'd be way cool! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #44 March 6, 2003 So, did stainless require TSOing, when it was approved?-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 7 #45 March 6, 2003 QuoteSo, did stainless require TSOing, when it was approved? The hardware it's self is not TSOable it just has to meet the technical requirements of the system that is TSOed. If a manufacturer wants to use it he has to seek and be granted approval from the "administrator". The material that approval is being sought for has to come from a supplier listed on on a document originally submitted to the FAA when a TSO is applied for.This document is called "an approved materials supplier list" it is just one of many that are part of the TSO package. If the manufacturer/ supplier is on the list then a simple paperwork change is all that is needed. One thing that TSO holders have to do is, batch testing of all critical materials received. If the manufacturer/ supplier is not on the list then further approval up to and including re-dropping will be required. So, if you want colored hardware go lobby the forge companies or start your own. Parachute equipment manufacturing is an expensive proposition. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #46 March 6, 2003 That about sums it up, thanks Mick! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #47 March 7, 2003 Quote Who's going to do the research and spend the money to see if this is true? What company out there is willing to take the liability to trust numbers that come from another industry? But if there were (or better yet are) companies out there that said that it does not effect the base material. Would if have to be TSO'ed again? I work in the thermal spray industry. I apply a metal coating to aircraft engine parts. With base materials ranging from different forms of titianium, steel, stainless, soft metal to extremely hard one, from sensitive applications(missile guidance system gyroscopes) to the other end of the spectrum. The company I work for has lots of different ways of applying this coating, all the way from way harsh to fairly non-harsh(for lack of a better description). And in no way does the base material get damaged through the correct processing of these parts.Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #48 March 7, 2003 Thank you mick, that is the first response that actually detailed the process for us non-riggers. That makes sense. Next step: Dave and I lobby the 'schmelters' -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #49 March 7, 2003 QuoteQuote Who's going to do the research and spend the money to see if this is true? What company out there is willing to take the liability to trust numbers that come from another industry? But if there were (or better yet are) companies out there that said that it does not effect the base material. Would if have to be TSO'ed again? I work in the thermal spray industry. I apply a metal coating to aircraft engine parts. With base materials ranging from different forms of titianium, steel, stainless, soft metal to extremely hard one, from sensitive applications(missile guidance system gyroscopes) to the other end of the spectrum. The company I work for has lots of different ways of applying this coating, all the way from way harsh to fairly non-harsh(for lack of a better description). And in no way does the base material get damaged through the correct processing of these parts. Maybe, but that is not the case with, for example, electroplating which has a history of causing mechanical failures in plated parts, particularly of high strength alloys. So the buyer would have to be quite knowlegeable about coating processes to make a rational choice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samp76 0 #50 March 7, 2003 I just received an reply back from a plating company, this is what was said: "Our Prismatic coloring process does not weaken or change the chemical properties of the stainless steel. The color is achieved by an electrochemical process that creates a thin layer (.000005") of chrome oxide on the stainless steel. The light refracting through the oxide back to your eye creates the color. Thanks, Regards, Bob Bramson President - Prismatic Stainless Steel" This company has been around for over 40 years. I would have to say the president of the company knows what he is talking about. --Sam-- Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
