RAF Aircrew Parachute 'Cocked' Related Question

Unfortunately I can't answer that one.
I'm sure the Duxford museum could probably take a few photo's for you.

From the many rigs I've seen (army, aircrew and civilian) I can only logically conclude that they must have had a drogue otherwise they would not have worked.

The army ones are static line. This is a bit of cord which has the bag containing the main attached to it and so the main is pulled out by the weight of the man! No interaction needed(and at the height they jump, with the kit they carry...they need it!!)
The RAF ones are different because they didn't know if they were going to jump or not, so they choose to deploy the drogue themselves. So I can only guess I'm afraid that the 1940's ones had these also. We need to find a film of someone bailing out and see if there is a tiny chute coming out first before the main!

In modern speak, if you don't cock the drogue chute, it sits in the spoilt air above you as you fall and hasn't the inertia to pull the bag out!! Can be rather disconcerting!

Sorry I can't be much more help

 

Skimmod, I'm with you on this one,
I reckon (can't say with any experience) that in WW2 the 'rip-cord' parachute deployment involved a drogue chute deployng the main canopy. Can't see how it could have worked otherwise.
A 'cocked' chute could be one modified by aircrew to allow 'self-deployment' in the airstream outside the aircraft, therefore not requiring use of the rip-cord.
There were plenty of examles of Aircrew hitting parts of the aircraft (particularly tail planes etc) on baling out and losing conciousness therefore unable to use rip-cord.
A 'cocked' chute would overcome this problem and I believe I have read accounts of guys who experienced exactly that ie baled out, knocked unconcious, but woke up to find they were dangling below deployed canopy without pulling rip-cord.
Seems quite logical to me given basis of parachute technology in 1940 - 45, but must have been a bit of a job to protect the 'cocked' chute during normal use and when chutes went back to packers for checking!
Later of course the whole thing changed when Martin Baker developed the ejector seat.

Mike

 

It's obviously a while since I handled a 'chute, but I cannot understand the cocking business.

Unless the ripcord 'tail' was pulled out of the eyes, the 'chute could not open?

IF the 'tail' was out, the bungees would pull the flap open even when removing the 'chute from the plane - let alone 'jumping'?

Don't see it!!

= Tim

Later - looking back - those 'strings' are the very strong 'bungees' that snap the cover open when the flap is unlocked.

Drogues? Can't recall one.

 

Without having a pre-war rig to play with, I can only go on my own (reasonably) recent experience!
The flaps have a loop of cord sewn on the inside, which are threaded through the eyes. The rip-cord is then threaded through those loops. If you cut those loops already, then as you step from the plane the chute will just fall out and the drogue (or pilot chute) will drag the main canopy out of the bag.
The RAF and the Army chutes would have different construction.

So the solution lays if anyone has one, or has a friend in a museum that can have a look and tell me how wrong I am

 

It's obviously a while since I handled a 'chute, but I cannot understand the cocking business.

Unless the ripcord 'tail' was pulled out of the eyes, the 'chute could not open?

IF the 'tail' was out, the bungees would pull the flap open even when removing the 'chute from the plane - let alone 'jumping'?

Don't see it!!

= Tim

Later - looking back - those 'strings' are the very strong 'bungees' that snap the cover open when the flap is unlocked.

Drogues? Can't recall one.

Hi Tim,

Many thanks for your comments.

Can I take it from your post you or your colleagues never tampered or modified your own chutes in 1940?

Regards
Andy

 

Andy - we were far too busy fighting a war to faff around with things like that!!

It was only when I was in MSFU in '42 that I learned to pack my own.

And here's how NOT to treat a 'chute!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8617768.stm

Mine stayed firmly in the c*ckpit!!

= Tim

PS Surely the ripcord wire ran directly through the eyes in the 4 or 5 'pegs'?

 

I cannot think that the wartime parachutes were anything but simple devices to save life.The fine tuning of the parachute systems came much later after the war and may have developed within specialised parachute teams.(I think the RAF had a parachute demonstration team by the name of the Flying Falcons)

Regarding any ad hoc alteration to safety equipment.I would think that on aircraft which the crew did not wear their parachutes permanently at their work station,there may be the possibily of of a parachute being used by someone other than the owner.Also the interference with safety equipment would be a chargeable offence.

Just looking at the statistics of SOE operators who lost their lives through parachute incidents.Quite low to say that these people had received only rudimentary training at Ringway. Parachutists hitting tailplanes and failure to deploy were the main reasons. Some broke limbs with disasterous consequences as regards their security in enemy held territory.But apparently whatever the reason for failure, if the problem was capable of feed back,improvements to the equipment was initiated by the RAF.

To give the SOE operators confidence in their safety equipment and this would apply to RAF aircrew in general,the procedure for packing parachutes would be demonstrated by WAAFs of the Parachute Section.Above the packing benches usually hung the notice "REMEMBER A MAN'S LIFE DEPENDS ON EVERY PARACHUTE YOU PACK".

I think that this type of servicemen were just happy to have a specified safety equipment which would prove to have a high level of reliability when the real test came.Their appreciation of the equipment was merely as an infrequent user.

 

Getting back to the various parachute types used in Bomber Command.

Here is the Chest Type (Observer) which non stationary crew wore.

The wearer is Flying Officer Roberts Dunstan who has an interesting PF.Dunstan lost his right leg in action as a sapper,in North Africa in 1941 while serving with the AIF.

Discharged as medically unfit,in 1942, he persuaded the RAAF that his disability would not prevent him servicing as aircrew. He subsequently completed training as a gunner and was posted to No 460 Squadron at Binbrook in the Lincolnshire Wolds.In the summer of 1943 he started and completed a tour of ops with "460" as a rear gunner.In October 1943 he was commisioned and before the year end was awarded the DSO.

Surviving the war,he later entered politics as a member of the Liberal Party and served as Minister in Victoria from 1970 to 1982.

 

Here is an example of the Seat Type (Pilot) parachute harness worn by a Squadron Commander who as a pilot preferred to use a Seat Type (Pilot) parachute.

Wing Commander H.R Graham is not wearing the parachute in this photograph.The Seat Type (Pilot) parachute did restrict mobility and wearers likened it to enforcing the wearer to "duck walk".Graham appears to be posing in this IWM photograph adjacent to a Stirling I of No 7 Squadron,a squadron he commanded for a year from April 1941.He may have preferred the Seat Type (Pilot) parachute for the Stirling which may have had sufficient room in the pilot's cockpit area to accomodate it.

Overall it was down to the personal preference of the pilots and this photograph was taken in the early days of the 4 engined heavies.

As far as I can ascertain,Wing Commander Graham survived the war.

Unable to post photograph.Will attempt later.

 

Duck walk? Anoher reason why mine stayed in the c*ckpit. I could be airborne before t'others reched their a/c!!

= Tim

 

Wing Commander H R Graham. OC No7 Squadron Bomber Command circa 1941/1942 (IWM)

 

Whilst looking for information on 264 Sqn I came across this photo of an air gunner from the squadron wearing the GQ Para suit. This suit incorporated a parachute harness and life preserver in one overall. This equipment was only issued to the B.P Defiant gunners due to the restricted space in their turret, which made escaping the aircraft with other types of parachute very difficult.



Uncat Record