# Regiment and the T-11 Parachute



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 4, 2009)

http://scottkarlins.tumblr.com/


----------



## JJOIFVET (Jul 4, 2009)

Is that chute square? Man I remember going to airborne school in the 90s, that was one of the funnest times in my career as a private.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 4, 2009)

I guess, kinda looks like a Divinci/t10 hybrid lol


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 4, 2009)

It does look a little square!


----------



## x SF med (Jul 4, 2009)

It looks like a cross of a square, a T-10, and an MC1-1B....

Anybody jumped one?  Any better control than the T-10 (jeez, I hated 'climbing the risers' to turn that thing...)


----------



## JJOIFVET (Jul 4, 2009)

They should come out with a square like the HALO shoot for static line, that way guys can steer away from tree's and power lines and so on. The Chute would be able to hold enough weight like the MC-4 and be able to take the blast of an opening.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 4, 2009)

I'm assuming the new version has something to do with the rate of descent?

Yeah, I second steerability.  I have landed in trees and major highways.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 4, 2009)

Steerability, while novel in concept, is not practical (in fact, down right dangerous) if you were to apply it on a mass scale. 

Smaller sticks, chalks, sure. 

Mass Tacs? No one would make it off the drop zone except maybe the JM's who asked for an extra race track to put themselves out after everyone else was done colliding with each other.....


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2009)

JJOIFVET said:


> They should come out with a square like the HALO shoot for static line, that way guys can steer away from tree's and power lines and so on. The Chute would be able to hold enough weight like the MC-4 and be able to take the blast of an opening.



I thought they had a square used for S/L jumps. I vaguely recall the Marines doing something with them....an MC-5?

They already have the canopies on the sport side, they'd just have to tweak them to make them Mil friendly.


----------



## lancero (Jul 5, 2009)

150 Ranger privates with steerable chutes.....OOOHHHH SHIT!


----------



## JJOIFVET (Jul 5, 2009)

lancero said:


> 150 Ranger privates with steerable chutes.....OOOHHHH SHIT!



This is true, I didn't think about the guys with little to no experience jumping. Yeah, nevermind that idea.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 5, 2009)

Ok, give them T-10's and e-3 and above steerable ones


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 6, 2009)

I almost think it'd be worthwhile to figure out how to make a parachute that performs like a T-10 ie straight down with no control input... but if you actually grab at the toggles it somehow "converts" to a more controllable canopy.  Trying to wrap my head around that one...


----------



## koz (Jul 7, 2009)

Ranger Psych said:


> I almost think it'd be worthwhile to figure out how to make a parachute that performs like a T-10 ie straight down with no control input... but if you actually grab at the toggles it somehow "converts" to a more controllable canopy.  Trying to wrap my head around that one...




Any Ram-air canopy will have a little forward drive due to the design - needs air to pressurize the cells.  But if the brake lines "cat-eyes" are set deep enough it will have very little drive.  The canopy will basically be in a "stall" which will bring the canopy nearly straight down.  Release the brakes the stall is taken out, forward drive increases, etc... All ram air canopies are packed as to minimize forward drive on opening. Brakes released - you go into full flight.  

 Cat eyes are the portion where you stow the toggle beneath the riser ring.  
The Marines are using the MC-5 which is the MC-4 in Static line configuration.


----------



## w45vaa (Jul 7, 2009)

So what 'chutes are actually in use  for S/L jumps now?

What ever happened to the SF-10 'Chute,a copy of a forrest service chute-was that ever fielded?


----------



## lancero (Jul 7, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> Ok, give them T-10's and e-3 and above steerable ones



Sounds good, but PL's will still need to "test out" before being allowed to use steerable chutes.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 7, 2009)

koz said:


> Any Ram-air canopy will have a little forward drive due to the design - needs air to pressurize the cells.  But if the brake lines "cat-eyes" are set deep enough it will have very little drive.  The canopy will basically be in a "stall" which will bring the canopy nearly straight down.  Release the brakes the stall is taken out, forward drive increases, etc... All ram air canopies are packed as to minimize forward drive on opening. Brakes released - you go into full flight.
> 
> Cat eyes are the portion where you stow the toggle beneath the riser ring.
> The Marines are using the MC-5 which is the MC-4 in Static line configuration.



I don't know a thing about ram-air canopy's, the entry cost for me to jump even when I was still active duty was... a full rig. The rental rigs here only hold 205 lbs of jumper.   

So, you could have a larger canopy with minimal forward drive, and when you go for the toggles due to OH SHIT JUMPER/TREE/ROAD/ASP/POWER LINES, you could go to full maneuverability?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 7, 2009)

lancero said:


> Sounds good, but PL's will still need to "test out" before being allowed to use steerable chutes.




Nah, you just have the riggers sew in the toggles on those rigs so they think they can maneuver, but can't fuck anything up... basically would equate to a left/right slip then LOL


----------



## koz (Jul 8, 2009)

Ranger Psych said:


> So, you could have a larger canopy with minimal forward drive, and when you go for the toggles due to OH SHIT JUMPER/TREE/ROAD/ASP/POWER LINES, you could go to full maneuverability?



Yes (you can get little forward drive with relatively smaller canopies too).  Cool think about a ram air design is you don't even need toggles to turn - the rear risers will get you turned quickly.  The toggle turn, rear riser turn, and front riser turn all act differently.  If you've just opened up and something/someone is in front of you -  grab a rear riser - it can save your life... 

koz
AFF-I, TI, SL-I, FAA rigger


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2009)

Precision made/ makes a ram-air pilot's emergency rig that you can land without any toggle input.

The problem is once you turn a ram-air it isn't like a round. While the turns are quicker you lose altitude (sometimes a lot) in a turn unless you know how to fly your canopy. Over the last few years some 50% or so of sport deaths are under functioning canopies that were improperly handled.


----------



## koz (Jul 9, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Precision made/ makes a ram-air pilot's emergency rig that you can land without any toggle input.
> 
> The problem is once you turn a ram-air it isn't like a round. While the turns are quicker you lose altitude (sometimes a lot) in a turn unless you know how to fly your canopy. *Over the last few years some 50% or so of sport deaths are under functioning canopies that were improperly handled.*




When I land on my sport rig, I make most of the landing flare on the rear risers and only transition to toggles near the end as speed/lift dies off.  But it is a little canopy (X-braced) 

Probably more than that (50%)...   I've seen way too many seriously hurt / killed under good canopies.  Many instructors fail to teach a braked turn (One toggle at half way the other all the way down ).  It can save your life.  

Ask Gen Petraeus how he broke his hip - 180 to smack the ground (the wind changed) - and he was on a big canopy - 260sq ft.


----------



## AWP (Jul 9, 2009)

koz said:


> When I land on my sport rig, I make most of the landing flare on the rear risers and only transition to toggles near the end as speed/lift dies off.  But it is a little canopy (X-braced)
> 
> Probably more than that (50%)...   I've seen way too many seriously hurt / killed under good canopies.  Many instructors fail to teach a braked turn (One toggle at half way the other all the way down ).  It can save your life.
> 
> Ask Gen Petraeus how he broke his hip - 180 to smack the ground (the wind changed) - and he was on a big canopy - 260sq ft.



When I started flying smaller wings (sub 135) I learned how to make stall turns on the rear risers, front riser turns, etc.; stall turns bailed me out on several occasions. I also learned how to land with the rears only, something that saved my ass once as well.

Jumpers fail to learn how to fly their canopies and it can and does kill them.

Then there's other jumpers taking people out....


----------



## koz (Jul 9, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> When I started flying smaller wings (sub 135) I learned how to make stall turns on the rear risers, front riser turns, etc.; stall turns bailed me out on several occasions. I also learned how to land with the rears only, something that saved my ass once as well.
> 
> *Jumpers fail to learn how to fly their canopies and it can and does kill them.*
> 
> Then there's other jumpers taking people out....



What canopy are you flying now?  I've got a Xaos21-98 and a Velo 96.  I personally like the Xaos  better as the openings are softer (especially when doing camera).  I had a Xaos-27 but I didn't like the openings on it. 

Back to the topic - I'm with you on the bold statement.  I too often seen people feel the need to downsize WAY too quickly and end up getting hurt.  It's especially frustrating seeing someone who can fly the canopy they have currently and believe if they downsize they fly it better.. :uhh:


----------



## AWP (Jul 9, 2009)

koz said:


> What canopy are you flying now?  I've got a Xaos21-98 and a Velo 96.  I personally like the Xaos  better as the openings are softer (especially when doing camera).  I had a Xaos-27 but I didn't like the openings on it.
> 
> Back to the topic - I'm with you on the bold statement.  I too often seen people feel the need to downsize WAY too quickly and end up getting hurt.  It's especially frustrating seeing someone who can fly the canopy they have currently and believe if they downsize they fly it better.. :uhh:



Depending on my weight at the time....:)

I have a Batwing 134 in my closet (and it shall stay there, the worst canopy I've ever flown), a Jedei 120 with the Eagle Trim lineset on it (similar to what modern canopies have as opposed to Stilletos and the lack from the late 90's), and I currently fly a 150 Sabre II. I'm not jumping enough to justify a Katana or Samurai.

I was pretty aggressive in my downsizing (220 @ 30 jumps, 170 Sabre @ ~80 jumps, a 135 Viper @ ~200 jumps and a 120 Jedei @ ~400 jumps) but I did so with a lot of coaching and mentoring, was jumping every weekend, was not an aggressive canopy pilot, and stayed at small to medium DZs. Not everyone should do that but I still think the risks were minimal.

However, I've seen guys with a 1000 jumps (or more) fly large and small canopies with their heads up their ass (Kudos to you, Danny, I'm sure Bob appreciated it) too. Bill Booth once commented that we could make the sport very safe and skydivers would still find a way to kill 40 a year.

Personally on the outside looking in, from military rounds to MFF to weekend fun-jumper...learn how to fly your canopy, how it works, what it does if you do x or y.....that knowledge could save your life or someone else's.

As the T-11 is integrated into Mother Army I'd be curious to see injury statistics over time with it.


----------



## koz (Jul 9, 2009)

koz said:


> .  It's especially frustrating seeing someone who can fly the canopy they have currently and believe if they downsize they fly it better.. :uhh:



That was supposed to say "someone who CAN'T fly the canopy"....  :doh:


----------



## koz (Jul 9, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> However, I've seen guys with a 1000 jumps (or more) fly large and small canopies with their heads up their ass (Kudos to you, Danny, I'm sure Bob appreciated it) too. Bill Booth once commented that we could make the sport very safe and skydivers would still find a way to kill 40 a year.
> 
> Personally on the outside looking in, from military rounds to MFF to weekend fun-jumper...learn how to fly your canopy, how it works, what it does if you do x or y.....that knowledge could save your life or someone else's.
> 
> As the T-11 is integrated into Mother Army I'd be curious to see injury statistics over time with it.



Yeah - Danny fucked up and it cost him and Bob their lives..  For those who don't know Bob Holler was a retired PJ and Danny was a retired Combat Controller.  Danny was a VERY experienced skydiver, MMF-JM, rigger, USPA director, TM, AFF-IE; but he ran into the back of Bob's canopy entangling them, and killed them.  Experienced jumpers die and as Free said, it's usually due to stupidity or carelessness.  Danny was a good guy and operator but it's a shame it it all ended this way..  

We forget we hurl ourselves out of a perfectly good airplane, fall really fast toward earth, and then expect a piece of nylon to save our lives...


----------



## koz (Jul 9, 2009)

But back to the topic at hand - I did a little research on the T11 and it's not steerable.  It does incorporate a slider which will help on the opening shock and the descent rate is less than the T-10

_*
ATPS Main Canopy
The ATPS main canopy is a highly modified and refined
version of the cross/cruciform planform parachute and
it exploits two of the most important characteristics of
cross parachutes: inherent stability and inherent gentle
opening. Unlike the T-10, the ATPS also incorporates
a slider which controls the opening speed of the
canopy and eliminates the possibility of a canopy inversion
or line over malfunction.
At 375 ft. (115m.) below the aircraft deployment altitude,
the ATPS rate of descent is 18 ft/sec (4.48 m/
sec) for a jumper with an All Up Weight (AUW) of 382
lbs. (173.2 kg). When compared with the T-10, the
slower rate of descent results in a 40% reduction in
impact energy upon landing.
*_
http://www.airborne-sys.com/productlisting.htm#

http://www.airborne-sys.com/pdfs/ATPS (8.07).pdf


----------



## RetPara (Jul 9, 2009)

Back in the early 80's the 82nd was doing MassTac's with -1's.   That was NOT a good experience.  I don't care what unit your in, but say in a Bn Mass Tac with 800+ jumpers....  You  probably have 10% that are so scared (but went out the door) that they just hold and pray all the way down...  You could who they were because they turned and ran with the wind and drove into the ground or turned into the wind at the last moment...  15% think they are Sky Gods and try to steer for the nearest turn in point to their Co Assembly area.  The scared guys are predictable...  these guys aren't.  They can get so fixated on the the turn in point they lose situation awareness that  The other 75% will try to stay out of the way of everyone else.

The genesis of the ATSP was the amount of weight jumpers have to carry now.  It would also seem that soldiers are getting bigger.  So it may have a slower rate of descent with a nominal load at sea level... what would the rate of descent then be at a higher altitude (Afghanistan) with a combat load.


----------



## RAGE275 (Aug 4, 2009)

I jumped a t-11 a couple weeks ago and no way, thing is definitely not steerable. However, having the toggles is nice as far as preventing oscillation and making for a relatively smoother landing compared to a 2 riser slip. RetPara hit the nail on the head. Talking to a couple riggers that's exactly why we jump T-10 instead of the T-11. Imagine a masstac, pitch black and 60 Rangers steering their way through the midnight sky. It's a recipe for disaster. I'm happy jumping with my T-10. Unless it's a Hollywood fun jump.


----------

