Jump to content


Photo

Parachute found in southern France


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Gliderpilot

Gliderpilot
  • Members
    • Member ID: 7,669
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern France

Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:51 AM

Hello,

This parachute has been found in southern France close to a town named Fayence which is quite far from the theoretical DZ.

Best regards.

Gliderpilot

Attached Images

  • IMG_0485.JPG
  • IMG_0480.JPG
  • IMG_0481.JPG


#2 doyler

doyler
  • Members
    • Member ID: 342
  • 33,921 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Under The Bridge

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:37 AM

Nice looking chute.Can we see some close ups of the printing on the back pane/cover from picture #3??
THanks
RD

#3 Gliderpilot

Gliderpilot
  • Members
    • Member ID: 7,669
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern France

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:53 AM

Here's a better pic for you.

Attached Images

  • IMG_0518.JPG


#4 king802

king802
  • Members
    • Member ID: 1,878
  • 2,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 03 September 2012 - 06:04 AM

That's in very good condition -what were the circumstances in finding it ? I presume it had been stored somewhere.

Rich

#5 ken88

ken88
  • Members
    • Member ID: 48,105
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ETO

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:51 PM

Awesome, any ideas of which regiment/battalion it could have belonged to? 551st, 509th, 517th..?

Cheers

#6 Baron3-6

Baron3-6
  • Members
    • Member ID: 83,679
  • 1,581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:JQMD

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:56 AM

If it is not from near an Airborne DZ, wonder if it could be an SOE/OSS chute used to insert an agent? Didn't they use standard equipment?

#7 5thwingmarty

5thwingmarty
  • Members
    • Member ID: 96,854
  • 1,107 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland Heights, MO

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:59 PM

The year looks like 1948 in the one photo.

#8 hink441

hink441
  • Members
    • Member ID: 10,825
  • 4,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 04 September 2012 - 05:24 PM

Does it say "USN" on the pack? My eyes are getting old!!

Chris

#9 doyler

doyler
  • Members
    • Member ID: 342
  • 33,921 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Under The Bridge

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:47 PM

Does it say "USN" on the pack? My eyes are getting old!!

Chris


Chris
Kinda looks like 43,hard to see.

#10 hink441

hink441
  • Members
    • Member ID: 10,825
  • 4,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:11 AM

This is the area I was questioning. It looks like it might possibly say "USN".

Chris

post_7669_1346161799.jpg

#11 gunbarrel

gunbarrel
  • Members
    • Member ID: 70
  • 6,319 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:24 AM

The year looks like 1948 in the one photo.


Agree.

Parachute.jpg

#12 gunbarrel

gunbarrel
  • Members
    • Member ID: 70
  • 6,319 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:27 AM

This is the area I was questioning. It looks like it might possibly say "USN".


Agree, again.

post_7669_1346161799.jpg

#13 ken88

ken88
  • Members
    • Member ID: 48,105
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ETO

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:06 AM

The date is 1943..

#14 USsebUS

USsebUS
  • New Members
    • Member ID: 2,247
  • 27 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 03:03 PM

it's probably from the 517th ! that why there is a " 17 " painted ...

and there is some misdrop trooper from 517th who landed not so far from Fayence.

#15 Mr-X

Mr-X
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,389
  • 4,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Central Highland's of Victoria, Australia - Uc Dai Loi

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:55 PM

Absolutely awesome item.

It is dated May 1943. It is to an AAF contract. Totally correct. Maybe some of you guys need to update your monitors and or specs. lol

There is a large 17 stenciled over the tray indicating 517PIR. Check out De Trez's First Airborne Task Force for further reference.

#16 ken88

ken88
  • Members
    • Member ID: 48,105
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ETO

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:23 AM

Awesome... Great to know it's from the 517th!

Posted Image

*Copyrighted picture. Please use for education only.

Edited by ken88, 20 September 2012 - 02:25 AM.


#17 WWII Parachutist

WWII Parachutist
  • Members
    • Member ID: 40,412
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:07 PM

Great chute! What date is on the harness?
If it ever needs a good home let me know........ :rolleyes:

#18 WWII Parachutist

WWII Parachutist
  • Members
    • Member ID: 40,412
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:15 PM

If it is not from near an Airborne DZ, wonder if it could be an SOE/OSS chute used to insert an agent? Didn't they use standard equipment?


I believe special agents used exclusively British gear for operations.....the T-5 had a rather hard opening shock that could leave marks on the jumper. 1944 QMC reports stated that it was strong enough to tear objects right off you. They specifically mentioned musette bags, canteens, holsters, and the helmet strap of the M1C. Later QMC documents from the late 40's mention there were incidents of unconsciousness from the T-5/7 opening shock at high speeds.
Less training would be needing in jumping the British chutes because there was less danger of a malfunction (deployment bag). The type X was very comfortable and conducive for special operations involve a select few individuals. And there wasn't the bulk of the reserve chute on your chest (just hope your chute doesn't fail!)

#19 Gregory

Gregory
  • Members
    • Member ID: 75
  • 3,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw, Poland

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:04 AM

the T-5 had a rather hard opening shock that could leave marks on the jumper. 1944 QMC reports stated that it was strong enough to tear objects right off you. They specifically mentioned musette bags, canteens, holsters, and the helmet strap of the M1C. Later QMC documents from the late 40's mention there were incidents of unconsciousness from the T-5/7 opening shock at high speeds.

Was opening shock G-force greater than 3g in the T-5/T-7 family? It would be interesting to compare it with the Soviet troop type parachutes of that era. The Soviets designed then their chutes in such a manner so as not to exceed 3g.

#20 WWII Parachutist

WWII Parachutist
  • Members
    • Member ID: 40,412
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:43 PM

Was opening shock G-force greater than 3g in the T-5/T-7 family? It would be interesting to compare it with the Soviet troop type parachutes of that era. The Soviets designed then their chutes in such a manner so as not to exceed 3g.


Yes, the opening force was significantly greater. I did some fairly in-depth research on the T-5/7 parachute deployment for a WWII parachute website I'm designing. It hasn't been published yet, but I copied some of the applicable information and pasted it below. If you'd like to see the whole thing let me know and I can post it or email you a copy. All information is from period military technical reports and studies, period parachute manufacturer studies, in conjunction with parachute opening force calculating computer software. What I posted is already probably way more than what you wanted, but here it is anyways.


"Parachute Opening Forces, Part 2
The jumper felt the full force of being decelerated in a split second from 100+ miles to hour to a gentle 13 miles per hour. Using the complex formulas that calculate the opening forces on a parachute, we see that the average force encountered on a training jump at slow speed with no equipment would average 1150 lbs, or approximately 6.4 gs. On high speed, low altitude jumps with combat equipment many troops would be subject to up to 2250 lbs. of shock load, or approximately 11.5 gs. This type of scenario is what many Normandy veterans experience on D-day.
This sudden shock load and abrupt halt many times left bruises on the trooper. While the three point harness used on the T-5 distributed the shock more uniformly, on the T-7 single point release harness, bruises usually occurred on the chest and back where the bulk of the shock is taken. On low speed training jumps the opening shock was relatively mild. In the heat of an airborne operation many pilots accelerated their aircraft to higher speeds, many times up to or over 150 miles per hour. In the postwar T-7 parachute era, the C-82's and C-119's could not be slowed down to the slower speeds of the C-47. Consequently the normal jumping speed in the 1950's was approximately 125 knots, or about 145 miles per hour. Jumps at even 150 knots (172 mph) were not uncommon, and caused sever riser burns at the very least. Jumpers with poor body positions could become knocked out and even end up with broken shoulders.
Jumping at this speed was not only hard on the parachutist, but also the parachute assembly itself. Malfunctions and canopy damage were directly linked to aircraft speed. The deployment of the T-5/7's was already erratic and the increase in airspeed did not help. At 135 miles per hour or more the parachute became unreliable and tended to malfunction. These high speeds could cause burns to the canopy and blow panels out. However it was not until a speed approaching 300 miles per that that canopy will literally start shredding . (see also the page on the T-7 to T-10 transition)
Additionally, anything that was not securely lashed to the trooper was usually ripped right off. A 1944 study by the Office of the Quartermaster General stated that even on low speed training jumps in late 1942, the loops securing the chin strap of the M-2 helmet were known to occasionally snap off where they were welded. It went on to say that both pistol holsters and canteen covers were reported to snap off at the wire clip which attached it to the belt. The straps on Musette bags occasionally tore off at the point of attachment.........."

#21 Gregory

Gregory
  • Members
    • Member ID: 75
  • 3,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw, Poland

Posted 23 September 2012 - 01:42 AM

Excellent info! :thumbsup:
Thank you very much. Will be big fan of your website when released.
Best regards
Gregory

PS.
Poor US paras. They had greater G-force than modern fighter pilots.

Edited by Gregory, 23 September 2012 - 01:44 AM.


#22 hink441

hink441
  • Members
    • Member ID: 10,825
  • 4,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 23 September 2012 - 02:28 AM

Absolutely awesome item.

It is dated May 1943. It is to an AAF contract. Totally correct. Maybe some of you guys need to update your monitors and or specs. lol

There is a large 17 stenciled over the tray indicating 517PIR. Check out De Trez's First Airborne Task Force for further reference.


I am not trying to be difficult, but I still see a "USN" stenciled on that chute. Don't know why it would be that way but it is definetly there.

Chris


2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users