Beatnik

I think some of this "copy" stuff really depends on context, like stealing the test answers of someone else. For example. I am currently restoring and rebuilding a 1948 RCAF Para-Rescue Technicians rig. Nobody knows of any complete rigs left in existence. Correspondence with the manufacturer even indicated that they no longer have an information on it or parts, etc. So I am left with old photos, and individual's experience to direct me how I can make as close to exact "copy" of the components I need. I am copying someone else's work and taking there ideas. Should this be allowed? Anything wrong with what I am doing? I don't feel what I am doing is wrong or unethical in anyway. I guess I could use the history aspect of it and argue that way but I don't think that I have to. It is a straight out copy of another design. This happens in museums a lot which some profit from and you could argue is for their use. Is that wrong? Just trying to get a feel on where you are coming from. I can see how this can be an issue as it has happened to friends of mine but that involved other companies using their design for their profit and not an individual using the design for their own use.

Just need somebody to make a Lonestar 2 kit. I agree, I could see some open source equipment eventually becoming available. It is happening in so many areas, I don't see why it wouldn't happen here. Cheers, Jim

USPA is a national aero club and issues licenses (certificates of proficiency) on behalf of the FAI and they are all internationally recognized. The FAI changed the minimum requirements for an FAI recognized license. The USPA, as a national aero club, has followed the FAI. This is a world wide thing and affects every aero club, not only the USPA. For the licenses to be internationally recognized, FAI licenses (certificates of proficiency), they had no choice. You can check out the minimum requirements here: https://www.fai.org/document-compression/25045

He probably got the tapes and book from me. I gave it to a couple of people across the pond once I digitized all them. The audio tapes aren't anything special.

I believe he is looking for a copy of the Lone Star Parachute Assembly Manual that mentioned early on in this thread. The manual, along with the audio tapes, was used to assemble the precut pieces that they sold with it at additional cost. The parachute did a few things that aren't conventional with modern parachute manufacturing. The manual used to be available online, I believe at the UKskydiver.co.uk site. I have two versions of it scanned in pdf form and a couple of years ago I digitized the audio tapes. I will make it a point sometime this year to upload them somewhere as I don't want to field individual requests for it. If someone has a suggestion of a repository where they could be stored and accessed by anyone it could be helpful. I don't want to put it on a private server or where someone could try and turn a profit from it. The information at this point isn't that fantastic.

Are you missing a PC for one and thats why you are asking? I might have a spare one in stock pile of spare parts, cap and all. I definitely have some MA-1s.

Congats to your friend for fulfilling his dream. Jumping a PC is something else. I think you might be a little disappointed in a Jumbo if you do happen to find one. I have one along with several other parachutes in my collection. While the Jumbo looks just like a larger MK1, it doesn't perform anywhere near it. It is pretty sluggish in comparison. I am not exactly a light guy myself so I don't think it has to do with the load. It doesn't seem that the success of the 24' is directly scalable in size.

It wasn't bad. Nothing great though. I don't think it is much different than a regular PC. The descent rate was slower but to try and say it was a huge difference would be an overstatement. I also jump regular PCs with a similar exit weight. I am not that small of a guy and most of these retro jumps are pretty fast PLFs.

Maybe I will bring it out to your neck of the woods sometime. I have a pretty good loading, about 265 lbs exit weight, on it and it didn't turn like any of my other PCs turn. I haven't jumped it that much because of its performance. It is a shame because it has very little jumps.

Hi Jerry: Only the RW PC was made out of lightweight ripstop. The Jumbo was good old taffeta like the other PCs. Mine is in a sleeve and it packs pretty big. I would say comparable in size to a T-10. It is only a PC in shape. It is a real slug in the sky.

I have scanned the copy of the manual I have but there are several other copies that have been online for a while. There are a couple of different versions of it as well. I have focused more time on converting the audio tapes to electronic files and happy to say that is done. These have not been available before. I just have a few things to do to clean them up and then I will make them available online. I have listened to all the tapes and it can be helpful depending on skill level. I may have found a Lonestar canopy as well. I will have to inspect it and determine if it was one when I get sometime. The canopy in question is a home built of the era.

Well it is not a supposed prototype. It has an easy traceable history. The prototype is solid gold in colour. It is the third parachute prototype in my collection.

That is a very good point that you bring up. Thank you for that comparison. I am going to drive that point across when I train new tandem instructors. The harness should be configured properly before boarding the plane. I don't like seeing TIs tighten them down while in the plane. Being an examiner I speak to them regularly. It is hard to change some people's routines but with proper education on how to fit a harness things do get better. UPT does have a video on properly fitting a student harness. All examiner's should have a copy of it.

I don't go on here much anymore. I restored a baby plane a few years ago. The packing procedure in the manual is for a terminal opening. The thought process I was told when I was talking to three of the people involved in designing the bag, risers, test jumper and business partner of Steve Snyder's was they thought it was better to have a bag lock than a premature. If the canopy is still setup with rings and ropes, the packing procedure for subterminal is to skip the noose that the reefing lines make around the suspension lines. If you have found a baby plane it is slightly different than the photos Andrew has linked to. If my Mark I eyeball is correct, those photos appear to be of a Para-plane Cloud. Slightly different parachute. I have a few recent jumps on my Para-plane. If you need any help with anything send me a PM. But don't put a slider on it like was suggested in this thread. The Type V lines don't take the friction produced well and the heat shrink knots connecting the suspension lines is a hang up point. You might get away with a accuracy slider with the d-rings but that canopy is not designed for one which is pretty clear when you look at the lines. On a side note, I picked up a related and very noteworthy canopy earlier this year. I was given Steve Snyder's second prototype ramair. It is very similar to a Para-Plane in many respects.

I There seems to be a lot of posts about me. Since I hardly feel the need to build a reputation from posts I hardly long on here anymore. I would rather build it first hand. Getting to some of your posts. My information comes from interviewing the individuals that were part of the subject (my interviews go back to the first president of CSPA and in some cases before), historical documents, photo evidence, reports, etc. I try not to let my opinion be construed as fact and rather get the correct and verified information. I have said it several times before. You pass your opinion on as fact. All I try to do is clear the information with accurate information for people to read and take on. Opinions are just that and there is usually a lot more information surrounding something than what is on the surface. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Any personal stuff that may or may not be there I leave out of public forums. If you would like to discuss this at anytime, please PM me and we can chat. You may have an idea of some of it since we had a brief time of working together but that really isn't an issue for me. I won't discuss anything in public as it is not the place for it. While I can appreciate the advice you are trying to give. I have a lot of experience with research methods and know how to pick out judgemental information. Using historical documents have to backed up with other sources of information, reviewed and checked. What you mention about them is a small piece of the issues with them. Feel free again to contact me about research methods, I would be happy to discuss them with you. I have a lot of formal education in this area and by no means an expert but have done a lot of it in my ten years of university and three degrees. You should probably do more research in this area as there are libraries full of information that contradict this statement. Your previous post answers your question, name bureaucrats, CSPA BoD. The original document which I still have is quite a bit longer but before being posted to the CSPA website, it was vetted by staff, BoD and committees at CSPA to make sure it was what they wanted. It is their website and they can put as much or as little as they would like on it. So thinking I have omitted something may just be an opinion and not necessarily the truth or factual information as an example. There are like usual other inaccuracies in some of your posts but I just don't care about trying to fix them. You have your opinions of things and like to share them in such a way using judgemental language so they will be taken as fact. That isn't to say that you don't have some good or relevant information but doesn't make it cause of why something happened or is done.