Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!oucsboss!oucsace!mspurgeo
From: mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Spurgeon)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Anyone jumped a Paradactyl?
Message-ID: <3558@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Date: 28 Jun 91 15:27:19 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.121456.16862@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept., Athens
Lines: 31

In article <1991Jun27.121456.16862@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>, dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Dan Briggs) writes:
> I'm one of the new generation of student weenies who has never jumped
> anything rougher than a medium sized ram-air canopy.  I can probably
(stuff deleted)
> looks interesting.  The Paradactyl looks more than just interesting.
> Perhaps terrifying is a better word?  Poynter's handbook claims that
> it has a performance approaching that of a ram-air canopy, but it just
> doesn't *look* like it has enough fabric!  From the photo, and one of
> Boenish's films it looks like the whole canopy would fit in a good
> sized throw-out pocket.  I exaggerate of course, but it really looks
> small.  Has anyone ever jumped one?  Do you flare it?  If the
> performance is as good as Poynter claims, why aren't they a more
> serious competitor to the ram-air canopies simply based on a tiny pack
> volume?

From what I remember, it weighed about 6-6.5 pounds.  One of the reasons
it became 'popular' was it's small volume.  It was on the leading edge
of 'smaller is better'.  Once again, relying on memory, it was built by
Jim Handbury.  There was even a 'double-keel dactyl'.

Performance was high.  They were flared for landing.  The pack volume
wasn't as small as today's squares.

I've seen one jumped from the New River Gorge Bridge.

They weren't that popular because of _reliability_ problems.  They were
called 'scare-adactyls' for that reason.  I believe too many suspension
lines going to too many attachment points.

Mike Spurgeon
Internet: mspurgeo@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu