h a l f b a k e r yInvented by someone French.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
so below a certain height, emergency chutes are useless
because they take several hundred feet to fully deploy and
slow you down. SO if you have a problem with your shoot
and have to open your reserve you have to do it really fast,
or you die.
I propose a parachute that has a few sealed
tubes in a star
pattern. Inside the tubes, would be a CO2 cartridge or the
same technology for car airbags, upon pulling the cord the
tubes would become rigid creating the parachute shape
much faster.
The tubes may also add some rigidity to the parachute to
prevent tangling or collapses.
CO2 cans are cheap, airbag tech a little more expensive.
Overall this wouldn't add a lot of cost or weight to a
parachute and would just require sewing a different
pattern.
Ballistic Recovery Systems
http://en.wikipedia...ic_Recovery_Systems
Rocket launched parachutes for small aircraft [DIYMatt, Sep 01 2011]
Martin Baker
http://www.youtube....watch?v=MgcPhl1UIhA
Ejection test from ground level [DIYMatt, Sep 01 2011]
Actual ejection from low level
http://www.youtube....watch?v=jaWNj-ZkADY
*impossible with a regular parachute* [DIYMatt, Sep 01 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Airbag technology: the parachute opens after you hit the
ground? |
|
| |
Actually, this is a good idea for ejector seats[+] |
|
| |
This would result in an incredible wedgie. |
|
| |
Perhaps the CO2 could give you an upward momentum instead (or as well) to reduce the impulse forces that are normally damped out by a slowly opening parachute. |
|
| |
Given the choice between a wedgie and going in,
I'll pick a wedgie. |
|
| |
Also, it probably wouldn't. On a regular chute, at
terminal you probably drop 100 or 200ft while the
chute is coming out of the bag, pulling out the
lines, getting ready to catch air and just beginning
to open. Then it takes only maybe another 50-
100ft to go from there to full inflation, which is
what causes the opening shock. (I'm thinking of
main chutes, which have a slider to slow this final
opening; a reserve is a bit snappier, so the final
opening is a bit faster.) |
|
| |
This system would accelerate the first stage; I
don't think you'd want or need to drive the canopy
to full openness in this way. |
|
| |
[Edit: the slider I mentioned is on square chutes;
round chutes instead have an apex-vent, which is
designed to stop the canopy inflating too
violently, by letting some of the air bleed out.] |
|
| |
... and to minimise the pendulum effect. |
|
| |
Widely known to exist. Ejection seats have had gun-launched parachutes for years and years that allow ejection even at ground level. |
|
| |
This is true matt, in a former profession I was a
rocket engineer (there's no scientists anymore) and
built ejection seat motors. |
|
| |
However I've never seen a device for man potable
sky diving use |
|
| |
+ but I don't really know anything about parachutes. |
|
| |
Base jumpers will have a hayday with this one. |
|
| |
//there's no scientists anymore// <lewiscarol> What
I tell you three times is true </charledogeson> |
|
| |