Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site waltz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!waltz!meyer From: meyer@waltz.UUCP Newsgroups: net.rec.skydive Subject: Missing Pilot Chute! Message-ID: <36200005@waltz.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 17:42:00 EST Article-I.D.: waltz.36200005 Posted: Tue Jan 29 17:42:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 00:15:28 EST Lines: 26 Nf-ID: #N:waltz:36200005:000:1536 Nf-From: waltz!meyer Jan 29 16:42:00 1985 I was out in Seattle a couple of years ago and had the opportunity to jump at a very "hot" drop zone in Issaquah (about 30 minutes east of Seattle). I was lucky enough to see them complete the first 17-stack CRW formation. But anyway, that same weekend, one of the CRW fanatics had come up with a new design which got rid of the pilot chute, since pilot chute entanglements are a constant problem with CRW. I saw him make his first few jumps on the rig which consisted of a diaper arrangement on a standard rig which had the center cell of the canopy sewn to a dildo that allowed him to direct deploy his main into the slipstream. He said that the opennings were VERY crisp and clean, especially at subterminal air speeds. He did try a couple of terminal opennings and for some reason they were squirrelly. He has continued to successfully use this design in all of his CRW jumps. Since then, I haven't heard or seen any more of this idea. Has anyone heard of any manufacturers that have pursued this -- or other pilot chuteless designs? ============================================================================== Dane Meyer (Texas Instruments, Dallas site) ARPA: ==> Meyer%waltz%TI-CSL@CSNET-Relay CSNET: ==> Meyer@TI-CSL USENET: ==> {convex!smu, ut-sally, texsun, rice}!waltz!meyer