T-6 and the parachute

[Randy Haskin]

Personally, I'd prefer a back pack. But I have a bit of parachuting experience and know I could fly better with one if I had to exit.

What is the difference?

To kind of answer Randy's question, there is alot of difference in the canopies. Sport Chutes are a flying wing style with alot of control, same as the Golden Knights use.

And to who said he could fly better with a backpack chute, the canopy used in a emergency chute is not the same as used in a sport chute. The canopies used in emergency chutes are round, with very limited control,

I guess my real question had to do with the statement above about being able to "fly better" with a back chute versus a seat pack chute.

I understand the difference in shapes of chutes (rectangle vs round canopy), but I didn't understand the difference between that chute being packed on your back versus being packed under your ass.

[Bill Greenwood]

As for fly better with one type of chute, the T-6 cockpit is roomy, lots of leg room as I recall. The back pack would give a average size person a little more reach to the rudder pedals and controls. That's for a normally proportioned homo sapien. It won't apply to Chuck, him being descended from the Randy Gardner line of former banana eatin tree swingers with overextended main gear oleos. Ever see a guy hand prop a Cub? Sure you have, but have you ever seen one do it while still seated in the cockpit? Randy could do it with his seat belt fastened if he could do it a foot propping instead of hand propping.

I don't think there is much need for a big seat cushion to raise one up vertically to see. The T-6 has a good range of seat adjustment. For me, you can see over the nose a bit anyway, and I don't feel like as much a part of the plane if I get too high above the instrument panel. I am about average height.

Whichever way you go, it makes sense to have a chute. The least logical thing is to ride around on a seat cushion, but have no chute. I know bailout is very rare in a T-6, I can't even recall one. But if you do acro you ought to have one, and flying a T-6 straight and level all the time is at least a minor sin. And don't forget the passenger also.

[Bill Greenwood]

I have used both Strong, Butler, and the cheaper Nationals. I really like the Butler, it is good but expensive!! Strong is high quality also. Nat makes some cool smaller ones for homebuilts, etc.

You might be able to bail out a little better with a backpack, being a little less cumbersome. I don't think it makes much difference, lot's of people have done it with either. Why not try to borrow and do a flight with each type. Whatever you get it has to be good for you to sit on for hours, or you get tempted to leave it at home or in the baggage. And don't forget earplugs for that noisy beast.

[Forgotten Field]

Randy,
I'm talking about flight characteristics while you are free falling. Depending on the situation of egress, you will be "flying" solo for a while. I have never jumped a seat pack, and have never "flown" with one outside of an aircraft. It seems to me that the back pack rig would be easier to fly with than the seat pack.
The HALO people jump with back pack rigs, but when they jump equipment, the ruck sack is hanging down below their fourth point of contact (similar to the way a seat pack would ride in an egress). I didn't think of this when I first wrote preferring a back pack, but remembering this made me think that a seat pack might not be too difficult to fly, but I don't know- no experience.

[BrianB]

Steve Hinton asked me to inspect the seat pack that Kevin Eldridge used after he bailed out (actually, dragged out) of the Super Corsair at the Phoenix Air Race in 1994. The canopy was a military surplus C-9 28' in a military harness/container. The parachute deployed while Kevin was only part way out of the cockpit and dragged across the empennage before inflating at a very high rate of speed. Kevin sustained serious injuries in the exit but the parachute held together..... just barely. 1/3 of the panels had serious damage and holes up to 2 ft across and the skirt band (bottom edge of the parachute) was almost severed in several places. There is no way that a general aviation rated parachute would have held together. This is why anyone who flies heavy iron needs a high speed certified parachute system. Butler would be my choice.
Here is a link to the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6384837258

[Bill Greenwood]

Brian, can you elaborate if you are expert on these types? As I learned it ,the military style chute opens slower, so less shock so less likely to rip. However, I did not know there is a difference in speeds certified to as to military and civilian. The best Butler and Strong I have seen are both certified for 254lbs. at, I think?, a 160 knot? opening speed. In our warbird flying, unlike combat, we are often at low altitudes and the quick opening feature of the civilian types seems like a good design.

[Randy Haskin]

Steve Hinton asked me to inspect the seat pack that Kevin Eldridge used after he bailed out (actually, dragged out) of the Super Corsair at the Phoenix Air Race in 1994. The canopy was a military surplus C-9 28' in a military harness/container. The parachute deployed while Kevin was only part way out of the cockpit and dragged across the empennage before inflating at a very high rate of speed. Kevin sustained serious injuries in the exit but the parachute held together..... just barely. 1/3 of the panels had serious damage and holes up to 2 ft across and the skirt band (bottom edge of the parachute) was almost severed in several places. There is no way that a general aviation rated parachute would have held together.

Recall that a C-9 chute also saved F-15E pilot "Noodle" Udell in the late 90s when he ejected at 675 knots.

[BrianB]

Brian, can you elaborate if you are expert on these types? As I learned it ,the military style chute opens slower, so less shock so less likely to rip. However, I did not know there is a difference in speeds certified to as to military and civilian. The best Butler and Strong I have seen are both certified for 254lbs. at, I think?, a 160 knot? opening speed. In our warbird flying, unlike combat, we are often at low altitudes and the quick opening feature of the civilian types seems like a good design.

I am not an expert on ejection seat sequencing, not having been a rigger in the military, but once the parachute starts to leave the pack the opening sequence is the same for military and general aviation types. I think that the military seats like the ACES II seats flown in most American fighters do have a logic circuit that times the opening of the pack based on altitude and airspeed...... on the deck=fast deployment and high and fast=slower sequence. Randy Haskin, is that accurate?

[Randy Haskin]

I am not an expert on ejection seat sequencing, not having been a rigger in the military, but once the parachute starts to leave the pack the opening sequence is the same for military and general aviation types. I think that the military seats like the ACES II seats flown in most American fighters do have a logic circuit that times the opening of the pack based on altitude and airspeed...... on the deck=fast deployment and high and fast=slower sequence. Randy Haskin, is that accurate?

In the ACES seat, the C-9 parachute is actually part of the seat -- it is packed right aft of the headrest and between the pitot tubes. As such, the seat can sense airspeed and altitude, and make smart decisions about when to open the chute based on reducing opening shock. If you bail out high, the seat simply keeps the pilot in the seat with a small drogue chute deployed and waits until you're at a lower altitude. At lower altitude, it deploys the drogue chute and waits until the seat slows a bit before deploying the main chute. In the case of Noodle above, even at the insane airspeed that he punched out at, the seat deployed the chute immediately and it was nearly ripped to shreds by the speed. Never the less it decelerated him enough at a low enough altitude that he plopped into the ocean at a survivable speed. He had far more injuries from his limbs flailing around at 675 knots than he did from the high speed opening shock.

There is actually no provision for a "manual" bailout in the ACES seat, since you're not actually wearing the chute.

In other seats -- such as the one in the T-38 -- a standard back chute is worn. Other than a barometer that gets pulled when the seatbelt pulls it, the seat has no vote in when the chute gets pulled. Either the pilot manually deploys it by pulling the D-handle, or the barometer automatically deploys it when you've fallen below 15K baro altitude.