RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

[Jim Logajan]

Video of wing failure via AVweb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk

RANS S-9 loses a wing in an airshow doing aerobatics; pilot survives
because plane is equipped with BRS and promptly deployed.

Natural to wonder whether some earlier stunt actually partially cracked the
spar.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> Video of wing failure via AVweb:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
>
> RANS S-9 loses a wing in an airshow doing aerobatics; pilot survives
> because plane is equipped with BRS and promptly deployed.

Fantastic to see a good end to a possibly terrible situation. Now I have to
wonder why all stunt pilots do not have a BRS chute. Seems like the best
way to save your life. The extra weight would be worth it, if you need it.

> Natural to wonder whether some earlier stunt actually partially cracked
> the
> spar.

Yep. He was doing some pretty violent snaps right before that outside loop
started.

I wonder if he had a peak recording G meter. I think I would want one if I
was doing acro.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Video of wing failure via AVweb:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
>
> RANS S-9 loses a wing in an airshow doing aerobatics; pilot survives
> because plane is equipped with BRS and promptly deployed.
>
> Natural to wonder whether some earlier stunt actually partially
> cracked the spar.

Here's the original video which includes footage left out of the AVweb
version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > Video of wing failure via AVweb:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
> >
> > RANS S-9 loses a wing in an airshow doing aerobatics; pilot survives
> > because plane is equipped with BRS and promptly deployed.
> >
> > Natural to wonder whether some earlier stunt actually partially
> > cracked the spar.
>
> Here's the original video which includes footage left out of the AVweb
> version:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s

He was lucky! If the plane had developed more rotation in roll, he might
not have been able to deploy the BRS.

I remember looking at an S-9 under construction and did not like the
wing structural load paths through the fuselage. It would be interesting
to find out just what components failed and how much abuse the structure
had endured prior to the accident.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[John Smith]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Here's the original video which includes footage left out of the AVweb
> version:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s

If I recall correctly, then the the RANS-9 is limited to a load factor
of +6/-4 G. Considering the kind of aero that has been displayed, I
strongly suspect that those limits had routinely been exceeded.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Smith" > wrote

> If I recall correctly, then the the RANS-9 is limited to a load factor of
> +6/-4 G. Considering the kind of aero that has been displayed, I strongly
> suspect that those limits had routinely been exceeded.

I was thinking the same thing.
--
Jim in NC

[Brian Whatcott]

On 8/17/2010 7:05 PM, Morgans wrote:
> "Jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> Video of wing failure via AVweb:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
>>
>> RANS S-9 loses a wing in an airshow doing aerobatics; pilot survives
>> because plane is equipped with BRS and promptly deployed.
>
> Fantastic to see a good end to a possibly terrible situation. Now I have to
> wonder why all stunt pilots do not have a BRS chute. Seems like the best
> way to save your life. The extra weight would be worth it, if you need it.
>
>> Natural to wonder whether some earlier stunt actually partially cracked
>> the
>> spar.
>
> Yep. He was doing some pretty violent snaps right before that outside loop
> started.
>
> I wonder if he had a peak recording G meter. I think I would want one if I
> was doing acro.

The push into an inverted loop ("bunt") is the prime opportunity for a
wing to fold, no doubt.

Brian W

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Video of wing failure via AVweb:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s

It looks to me like the plane nearly flopped over on the canopy after landing.
Had that happened, the outcome would have been tragically different.

Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.

Vaughn

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>
>

I would prefer the plane not to break up...

Tom De Moor

[Dan[_12_]]

Tom De Moor wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
>> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>>
>>
>
> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>
> Tom De Moor

I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> Tom De Moor wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic
>>> chutes? I was amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>>
>> Tom De Moor
>
> I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Looks pretty much like exactly that, Dan.


--

Richard Lamb

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
> where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.

Vaughn

[Dan[_12_]]

vaughn wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
>> where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
> tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

I guess the difference is one can pull a lever and recover from a
possibly fatal situation. The closest example you give is the seatbelt
which would keep one from falling out of an open cockpit.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Video of wing failure via AVweb:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s
>
> It looks to me like the plane nearly flopped over on the canopy after
> landing.
> Had that happened, the outcome would have been tragically different.
>
> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I
> was
> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>
> Vaughn

I think the plane/pilot under discussion is part of an aerobatic team
that flies S-9's. If that is correct, then I would expect that the
planes have been modified to make them suitable for that level of
aerobatics. Unfortunately, even top level aerobatic birds can shed parts
if there is unidentified damage or fatigue in the structures. Wasn't
there a control system failure in Sean Tucker's Pitts?

No question that ballistic chutes are a good idea. They don't always
save the day, though. There was the SR-22 involved in a mid-air. The
ballistic chute was deployed, but the Cirrus was on fire and the pilot
and passenger jumped for it...from several hundred feet agl. The
weirdest ballistic chute misadventure that I know of was the breakup of
a Sparrowhawk ultralight glider that was being tested for potential
drone use. The Sparrowhawk comes with the BRS as standard equipment. A
test pilot was flying this particular Sparrowhawk and, because of a
faulty ASI, exceeded VNE by quite a bit. It was later determined that he
was over 175 knots when the thing came apart. It fluttered and the BRS
deployed on it's own due to the airframe breakup. The BRS deployment at
that high airspeed ejected the pilot, harnesses and all. Luckily, he was
also wearing a chute and was able to use it.

I don't have a BRS in my Stits LSA (yet), but I do have two good
emergency chutes. I always wear a chute when I fly my glider (it's the
primary seat cushion), and I often wear my chute when flying other
aircraft. I get funny looks when I step out of a 172 with a chute on.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 18, 10:58*am, Dan > wrote:
> Tom De Moor wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? *I was
> >> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>
> > I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>
> > Tom De Moor
>
> * *I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.

Test pilots of course are a different story: their job is poke in
those dark corners.

[Dan[_12_]]

a wrote:
> On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan > wrote:
>> Tom De Moor wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
>>>> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>>> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>>> Tom De Moor
>> I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
>> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
>> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
>> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
> parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
> breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
> than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
> release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.


One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
(is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Tom De Moor wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes?
>>> I was amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>>
>> Tom De Moor
>
> I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I lso suspect the same, and might add that he was very fortunate that the
failure did not occur near the bottom of the "box"--assuming that I have the
terminology correct.

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 18, 10:57*pm, Dan > wrote:
> a wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan > wrote:
> >> Tom De Moor wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? *I was
> >>>> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
> >>> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
> >>> Tom De Moor
> >> * *I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
> >> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
> >> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
> >> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
> > parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
> > breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
> > than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
> > release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.
>
> * *One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
> (is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
> which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
> convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not to make too fine a point of it, but if the recovery parachute
deployed because the pilot pulled a wing off, the notion of
'repairable' vs write-off comes into play. In the video, didn't the
airplane come down nose fist? In the case of the Cirrus, they come
down pretty fast, and I don't know, in the US at least (excepting
Nebraska, where the flatness seems to go on for ever) how likely it is
the airplane would come down to a flat surface.

Recovery parachutes can be thought of as life insurance policies,
where the company is betting you're going to live and you're betting
you're going to die: you objective is to let the insurance company, or
the parachute, never have to be used.

[Dan[_12_]]

a wrote:
> On Aug 18, 10:57 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> a wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> Tom De Moor wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
>>>>>> amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
>>>>> I would prefer the plane not to break up...
>>>>> Tom De Moor
>>>> I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
>>>> near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
>>>> within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
>>>> to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>> Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
>>> parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
>>> breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
>>> than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
>>> release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.
>> One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
>> (is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
>> which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
>> convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Not to make too fine a point of it, but if the recovery parachute
> deployed because the pilot pulled a wing off, the notion of
> 'repairable' vs write-off comes into play.

Agreed.

In the video, didn't the
> airplane come down nose fist?

I have the feeling that the recovery parachute couldn't have saved
that particular airplane. Have you seen the BRS demonstration video of a
Cessna, if memory serves, deploy and gently land the airplane. I wonder
if anyone can make a blanket claim as to the relative value of the system.

In the case of the Cirrus, they come
> down pretty fast, and I don't know, in the US at least (excepting
> Nebraska, where the flatness seems to go on for ever) how likely it is
> the airplane would come down to a flat surface.
>
> Recovery parachutes can be thought of as life insurance policies,
> where the company is betting you're going to live and you're betting
> you're going to die: you objective is to let the insurance company, or
> the parachute, never have to be used.

Personally, I feel if one has the money, space and weight allowance
for a recovery parachute it's not a bad investment. Having seen first
aid and survival kits in sad shape I wonder if the owners of recovery
systems would keep up on the inspection requirements.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Oliver Arend]

I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European
ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all
our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had
several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute.

Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system.
Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are
very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the
engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency
landing, like over water, forest or swamp.

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace
the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage.

Oliver

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Oliver Arend" > wrote

> Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
> landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
> airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
> comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
> s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).

Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.
--
Jim in NC

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 19, 3:40*am, Oliver Arend > wrote:
> I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European
> ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all
> our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had
> several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute.
>
> Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system.
> Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are
> very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the
> engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency
> landing, like over water, forest or swamp.
>
> Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
> landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
> airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
> comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
> s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
> In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace
> the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage.
>
> Oliver

I was interested in seeing if there was any factual information about
damages immediately available on the use of recovery parachutes,
here's the URL from manufacturer with some interesting statistics, the
most telling of which is that those Cessna pilots listed here who
deployed their chutes .walked away from airplanes that in most cases
suffered serious damage but would fly again.


http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx


Looking a little more, here's something Cirrus specific. Notice the
number of accidents where the PIC was instrument rated.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009LessonsLearned.aspx

One last bit. . .

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx

Probably 40% of my SEL PIC time is either or both night/IMC, and this
information at least suggests the probable cost and risk of deploying
a recovery chute if there's going to be a forced off field landing is
less than attempting to find a suitable place to put the bird down
safely. It's clear the chances of a no-damage landing are better if
one flies and lands the airplane, but so are the chances of post
landing fire or a non survivable crash.

The guys who really study this stuff are the insurers, be interesting
to see if liability rates and the like start showing lower rates for
those who fly airplanes with recovery chutes. I doubt there's a large
enough data base accurate statistics, but the universe of owner pilots
is an attractive one for insurers (the underlying assumption being
that group is self selecting as well above average in income).

Decisions, decisions.

[rich[_2_]]

That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 19, 5:35*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
> > where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
>
> The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
> tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.
>

My knowledge of human factors suggest that this would be the case for
some high risk pilots but not all.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 19, 8:05*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Oliver Arend" > wrote
>
> > Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
> > landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
> > airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
> > comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
> > s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
>
> Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
> the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying
> that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
> always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
> come down nose first?
>
> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
> aircraft and the passengers.
> --

When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper
cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some
(?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is
equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact
will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off.
So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes
structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is
moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be
the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced
landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea
compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good
device to have as an option but also has some negative features and
needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine
fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in
the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin
penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or
crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point.

Cheers

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Oliver Arend" > wrote
>
>> Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
>> landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
>> airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
>> comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
>> s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
>
> Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
> the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
> that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
> always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
> come down nose first?
>
> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
> aircraft and the passengers.


An engine fire in this particular accident would have been a bummer...

--

Richard Lamb

[cavelamb[_2_]]

rich wrote:
> That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
> there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
> purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?


Notice that the wing came off intact.

Looks like the struts folded in compression.

Also note the very narrow angle, since the struts go to the bottom
of the fuselage (on a mid wing).

I'd sure like to be able to inspect the remains...


--

Richard Lamb

[Morgans[_2_]]

>
>> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
>> the aircraft and the passengers.
>
> To heck with the aircraft. At that point it has already done something
> to let me down, so to speak. Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
> as
> much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
> passengers.

Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. You can't beat all
the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. The gear gives and
holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. The
seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
passengers. The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. The
seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
take all of the punishment. If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
protect the back even more. The fact that you are not moving forward, like
a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
other forward structures.

So yes, the heck with the aircraft. Level is good. It just so happens that
if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
thing that has to be replaced.

Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. Shoot, most
of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
to protect them. Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
gravy.
--
Jim in NC

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 19, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
> >> the aircraft and the passengers.
>
> > *To heck with the aircraft. *At that point it has already done something
> > to let me down, so to speak. *Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
> > as
> > much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
> > passengers.
>
> Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. *You can't beat all
> the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. *The gear gives and
> holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. *The
> seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
> passengers. *The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. *The
> seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
> remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
> take all of the punishment. *If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
> protect the back even more. *The fact that you are not moving forward, like
> a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
> it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
> Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
> other forward structures.
>
> So yes, the heck with the aircraft. *Level is good. *It just so happens that
> if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
> designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
> thing that has to be replaced.
>
> Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. *Shoot, most
> of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
> to protect them. *Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
> gravy.
> --
> Jim in NC

It pays to remember to open the doors before impact, there's a chance
airframe bending would otherwise jam them. Interesting though, jammed
doors were not mentioned as a factor in the cases where people talked
about deployed rescue parachutes, although in one case I think someone
had to break open a window

[Tom De Moor]

In article >, rich54
@rocketmail.com says...
>
> That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
> there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
> purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?



http://www.rans.com/s9spec.html

Around 10 kUS$ for an airframe seems not overly expensif.
189 flying.

As to looks and colors...

Tom De Moor

[Brian Whatcott]

At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W


On 8/19/2010 10:09 PM, a wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:56 pm, > wrote:
>>>> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
>>>> the aircraft and the passengers.
>>
>>> To heck with the aircraft. At that point it has already done something
>>> to let me down, so to speak. Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
>>> as
>>> much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
>>> passengers.
>>
>> Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. You can't beat all
>> the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. The gear gives and
>> holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. The
>> seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
>> passengers. The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. The
>> seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
>> remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
>> take all of the punishment. If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
>> protect the back even more. The fact that you are not moving forward, like
>> a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
>> it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
>> Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
>> other forward structures.
>>
>> So yes, the heck with the aircraft. Level is good. It just so happens that
>> if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
>> designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
>> thing that has to be replaced.
>>
>> Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. Shoot, most
>> of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
>> to protect them. Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
>> gravy.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> It pays to remember to open the doors before impact, there's a chance
> airframe bending would otherwise jam them. Interesting though, jammed
> doors were not mentioned as a factor in the cases where people talked
> about deployed rescue parachutes, although in one case I think someone
> had to break open a window

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 19, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
> >> the aircraft and the passengers.
>
> > *To heck with the aircraft. *At that point it has already done something
> > to let me down, so to speak. *Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
> > as
> > much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
> > passengers.
>
> Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. *You can't beat all
> the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. *The gear gives and
> holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. *The
> seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
> passengers. *The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. *The
> seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
> remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
> take all of the punishment. *If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
> protect the back even more. *The fact that you are not moving forward, like
> a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
> it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
> Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
> other forward structures.
>
> So yes, the heck with the aircraft. *Level is good. *It just so happens that
> if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
> designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
> thing that has to be replaced.
>
> Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. *Shoot, most
> of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
> to protect them. *Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
> gravy.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim, a 15 foot fall -- think of falling from the roof of a two story
building -- does real damage, but in the case of a rescue parachute
you're in a metal cage. Level impact in something like a 182 has the
fixed gear that have a lot of flex -- a few inches of spring yield
would reduce the G forces a lot, and the history shown in one of the
urls I posted has the people walking away from the crash.

A Mooney might be a different story. the gear is fairly stiff, they
connect right to the wing spar which is not attached to the fuselage
but goes right through it -- one piece, end to end. I think a 15 foot
pancake drop in my airplane would hurt a lot more than in a Cirrus or
a Cessna.

So you've had an engine failure or the like, you're at best endurance
glide, in a perfectly fine airplane except the fan stopped turning,
it's IMC, and that red handle is right there. If you pull it you're
probably going to inflict several hundred thousand dollars on the
airplane, if you get under the cloud deck just maybe you can
land. . .

You really want to have thought about all of that beforehand, and have
programmed yourself to pull the handle in a circumstance like that. I
am thinking the prudent pilot would say "Dammit" and deploy the
parachute.

I had best write a decision tree and do some calculations, I'm
starting to talk myself in this thing. I've got a couple of thousand
hours PIC, never had to do an off field landing (the airplane and the
pilot are both well maintained), but things do happen. . .

[Gemini]

On 2010-08-20, brian whatcott > wrote:
> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
> deployed.
> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
> dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
> on the neck.
>
> Brian W

I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:

If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?

Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
put an engine in your lap.

I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
at me as potential additional hazards.

Regards,
Scott

[Morgans[_2_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
> deployed.
> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from dropping
> into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash on the
> neck.

If there was a nearly upright sitting position, it would be good back
support, but...
If the design had a regular nose mounted engine, that would mean a sudden
stop could allow the engine to keep going and end up on your lap.
--
Jim in NC

[Brian Whatcott]

On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
> On 2010-08-20, brian > wrote:
>> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
>> deployed.
>> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
>> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
>> dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
>> on the neck.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
> zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:
>
> If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
> ~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?
>
> Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
> most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
> potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
> put an engine in your lap.
>
> I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
> some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
> at me as potential additional hazards.
>
> Regards,
> Scott

The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
point in any plane. when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....



Brian W

[Garry O]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Oliver Arend" > wrote
>>
>> > Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
>> > landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
>> > airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
>> > comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
>> > s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
>>
>> Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft,
>> and
>> the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
>> that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
>> always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled
>> and
>> come down nose first?
>>
>> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
>> the
>> aircraft and the passengers.
>> --
>
> When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper
> cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some
> (?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is
> equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact
> will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off.
> So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes
> structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is
> moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be
> the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced
> landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea
> compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good
> device to have as an option but also has some negative features and
> needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine
> fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in
> the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin
> penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or
> crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point.
>
> Cheers

One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
what a crock!!
if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her capabilities
then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest thing from
their mind and rather they have taken a course of action designed to make
their survivability a priority.
honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
"maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to hurt"

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ"

[John Smith]

Morgans wrote:
> Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
> the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
> that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
> always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
> come down nose first?
>
> It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
> aircraft and the passengers.

The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.

I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
story.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 22, 9:56*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
> > the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying
> > that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
> > always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
> > come down nose first?
>
> > It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
> > aircraft and the passengers.
>
> The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
> the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
> gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
> aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
> to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.
>
> I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
> weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
> story.

The aftermarket instillation of a Cirrus like rescue parachute in
Cessnas most often has the canister in the luggage compartment, and
it appears the harness attaching it to the firewall and aft on the
airplane are under a fiberglass fairing that gives way when the
parachute is deployed. The airplanes are intended to come down more or
less flat.

In a significant number of cases (the statistics are cited in
references elsewhere in this thread) the airplane was not totaled
after being brought down under the parachute.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Garry O" > wrote
>
> One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
> what a crock!!

I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps
was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail
down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type
aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail. I was
stating that the fuselage, landing gear and seats offered much better crush
distance (equating directly to peak G forces experienced by the occupants)
that would a tail up landing. I stick by that observation for well designed
aircraft. The landing gear will crush, and so will proper seat supports,
thus giving maximum protection to the people in the plane.

> if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her
> capabilities then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest
> thing from their mind and rather they have taken a course of action
> designed to make their survivability a priority.
> honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
> "maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to
> hurt"

I never have been in a position to pull a chute in a plane, but I purposely
drove off an inline in a van rather than roll down the incline, and in that
case, I most definitely thought "this is going to hurt" in one millisecond
during the crash. I made the right choice, because I did not roll, and I
most certainly would have if I had not made the conscious choice to drive
directly off of the drop-off.

If a person decides to pull a chute, they most likely have decided the plane
is a write-off. It only could be a bonus if it is not.
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Garry O" > wrote
>> One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
>> what a crock!!
>
> I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps
> was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail
> down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type
> aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail.


We don't really KNOW how it was rigged, only how it came down.
As much roll as was present, it could well be that part of the
harness got wrapped around the tailwheel or something...



--

Richard Lamb

[Garry O]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Garry O" > wrote
>>
>> One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
>> what a crock!!
>
> I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps
> was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail
> down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type
> aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail. I
> was stating that the fuselage, landing gear and seats offered much better
> crush distance (equating directly to peak G forces experienced by the
> occupants) that would a tail up landing. I stick by that observation for
> well designed aircraft. The landing gear will crush, and so will proper
> seat supports, thus giving maximum protection to the people in the plane.
>
>> if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her
>> capabilities then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest
>> thing from their mind and rather they have taken a course of action
>> designed to make their survivability a priority.
>> honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
>> "maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to
>> hurt"
>
> I never have been in a position to pull a chute in a plane, but I
> purposely drove off an inline in a van rather than roll down the incline,
> and in that case, I most definitely thought "this is going to hurt" in one
> millisecond during the crash. I made the right choice, because I did not
> roll, and I most certainly would have if I had not made the conscious
> choice to drive directly off of the drop-off.
>
> If a person decides to pull a chute, they most likely have decided the
> plane is a write-off. It only could be a bonus if it is not.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
My fault, I was replying to Oliver Arend and in particular this part "Even
if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane
will suffer less damage"
A sentiment that others seemed to share. I by no means think that is all
they thought of but rather they seemed fixated on that particular argument.
While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC can
be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily replace
me, or so I would like to think ;-)

--
Garry O

[Gemini]

On 2010-08-21, brian whatcott > wrote:
> On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
>> On 2010-08-20, brian > wrote:
>>> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
>>> deployed.
>>> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
>>> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
>>> dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
>>> on the neck.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
>> zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:
>>
>> If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
>> ~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?
>>
>> Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
>> most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
>> potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
>> put an engine in your lap.
>>
>> I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
>> some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
>> at me as potential additional hazards.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Scott
>
> The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
> point in any plane. when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
> of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....
>
>
>
> Brian W

I agree that having the attachment to a hard point like an engine mount
is good - and that the tail would make a great crumple zone, but
I wonder if having that extra weight of the engine above you, and still
pressing down would cause more trouble. I also wonder, that, once
the tail hits, and starts absorbing the impact, the parachure will
actually "deflate" and continue to fall, likely faster than the
crumpling, and fall off to the side, so that when the plane falls
over, there will be nothing to slow it down.
Since there will be wind, it will likely not fall straight down, and
will hit with some lateral motion, thus increasing the risk of it
toppling with more energy. Know what I mean? I'm not sure if I'm
accuratley describing my concerns.

Regards,
Scott

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 2:39*pm, Gemini > wrote:
> On 2010-08-21, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
> >> On 2010-08-20, brian > *wrote:
> >>> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
> >>> deployed.
> >>> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
> >>> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
> >>> dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
> >>> on the neck.
>
> >>> Brian W
>
> >> I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
> >> zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:
>
> >> If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
> >> ~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?
>
> >> Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
> >> most of the airplane weight, still *above you? That's a lot of
> >> potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
> >> put an engine in your lap.
>
> >> I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
> >> some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
> >> at me as potential additional hazards.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Scott
>
> > The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
> > point in any plane. *when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
> > of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....
>
> > Brian W
>
> I agree that having the attachment to a hard point like an engine mount
> is good - and that the tail would make a great crumple zone, but
> I wonder if having that extra weight of the engine above you, and still
> pressing down would cause more trouble. I also wonder, that, once
> the tail hits, and starts absorbing the impact, the parachure will
> actually "deflate" and continue to fall, likely faster than the
> crumpling, and fall off to the side, so that when the plane falls
> over, there will be nothing to slow it down.
> Since there will be wind, it will likely not fall straight down, and
> will hit with some lateral motion, thus increasing the risk of it
> toppling with more energy. Know what I mean? I'm not sure if I'm
> accuratley describing my concerns.
>
> Regards,
> Scott

There have been a number of actual deployments on SEL airplanes
(Cirrus, c172, c182), in a number of cases the airplane was not
totaled, and it appears that the chances of walking away or at least
living through a descent under a rescue parachute is greater than
trying to fly the airplane down.

The likelihood of being in a circumstance where one needs to deploy
the chute seems pretty small but if you need it that it is available
would be nice. It's an expensive insurance policy, expensive to
install and expensive to use. If I remember this correctly one had not
been used, according to some of the references, because of an engine
failure. I would have thought that was the most probable use!

..

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Garry O" > wrote

> While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
> would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
> F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
> can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
> replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. <g>

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Garry O" > wrote

> While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
> would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
> F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
> can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
> replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. <g>

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_12_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Garry O" > wrote
>
>> While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
>> would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
>> F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
>> can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
>> replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)
>
> Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. <g>
>
> On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
> had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.
>
> Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
> remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
> easily) This, with a smile on her face.
>
> I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! <g>

My now ex was a tad more mercenary. Not long before I retired from
the military she and my children were "joking" about how to bump me off.
She also told me I had to sleep sometime. I guess a couple hundred
dollars SGLI was a bit tempting.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 10:50*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Garry O" > wrote
>
> > While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
> > would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
> > F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
> > can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
> > replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)
>
> Indeed. *And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. *<g>
>
> On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
> had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.
>
> Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
> remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. *I can do it again, just as
> easily) This, with a smile on her face.
>
> I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
doesn't it?

[Gemini]

On 2010-08-23, a > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:39*pm, Gemini > wrote:
>> On 2010-08-21, brian whatcott > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
>> >> On 2010-08-20, brian > *wrote:
>> >>> At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
>> >>> deployed.
>> >>> This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
>> >>> benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
>> >>> dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
>> >>> on the neck.
>>
>> >>> Brian W
>>
>> >> I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
>> >> zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:
>>
>> >> If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
>> >> ~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?
>>
>> >> Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
>> >> most of the airplane weight, still *above you? That's a lot of
>> >> potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
>> >> put an engine in your lap.
>>
>> >> I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
>> >> some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
>> >> at me as potential additional hazards.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Scott
>>
>> > The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
>> > point in any plane. *when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
>> > of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....
>>
>> > Brian W
>>
>> I agree that having the attachment to a hard point like an engine mount
>> is good - and that the tail would make a great crumple zone, but
>> I wonder if having that extra weight of the engine above you, and still
>> pressing down would cause more trouble. I also wonder, that, once
>> the tail hits, and starts absorbing the impact, the parachure will
>> actually "deflate" and continue to fall, likely faster than the
>> crumpling, and fall off to the side, so that when the plane falls
>> over, there will be nothing to slow it down.
>> Since there will be wind, it will likely not fall straight down, and
>> will hit with some lateral motion, thus increasing the risk of it
>> toppling with more energy. Know what I mean? I'm not sure if I'm
>> accuratley describing my concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Scott
>
> There have been a number of actual deployments on SEL airplanes
> (Cirrus, c172, c182), in a number of cases the airplane was not
> totaled, and it appears that the chances of walking away or at least
> living through a descent under a rescue parachute is greater than
> trying to fly the airplane down.
>
<snip>

I was referring to having a parachute in the front; so the
plane would land on the tail, rather than nose first or flat.

Regards,
Scott

[Morgans[_2_]]

"a" > wrote
Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
doesn't it?
*********************
Ouch!!!
--
Jim in NC

[Stu Fields]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "a" > wrote
> Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
> doesn't it?
> *********************
> Ouch!!!
> --
> Jim in NC

My wife and I ran a disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall Islands
and she started the office while I was still employed by the US Army at
Kwajalein. When my retirement came thru, only 2 weeks after my wife opened
the disaster office, I came down and was introduced by the Chief Secretary
of the Republic to the President of the Marshall Islands as: "Mr. Kathy
Fields".

Still tickles me...

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 24, 7:26*pm, "Stu Fields" > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "a" > wrote
> > Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
> > doesn't it?
> > *********************
> > Ouch!!!
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> My wife and I ran a disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall Islands
> and she started the office while I was still employed by the US Army at
> Kwajalein. *When my retirement came thru, only 2 weeks after my wife opened
> the disaster office, I came down and was introduced by the Chief Secretary
> of the Republic to the President of the Marshall Islands as: * "Mr. Kathy
> Fields".
>
> Still tickles me...

You may have heard that old joke of two men talking with each other,
and one was trying to remember a restaurant's name and just couldn't
recover it. He asked his buddy "Hey, what's the name of that flower
that smells good but has thorns?" His friend responded "Do you mean
roses?" "Yeah, that's it." He turned and shouted to his wife "Hey
Rose, do you remember. . .".

It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.

[Stu Fields]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 7:26 pm, "Stu Fields" > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "a" > wrote
> > Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
> > doesn't it?
> > *********************
> > Ouch!!!
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> My wife and I ran a disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall
> Islands
> and she started the office while I was still employed by the US Army at
> Kwajalein. When my retirement came thru, only 2 weeks after my wife opened
> the disaster office, I came down and was introduced by the Chief Secretary
> of the Republic to the President of the Marshall Islands as: "Mr. Kathy
> Fields".
>
> Still tickles me...

You may have heard that old joke of two men talking with each other,
and one was trying to remember a restaurant's name and just couldn't
recover it. He asked his buddy "Hey, what's the name of that flower
that smells good but has thorns?" His friend responded "Do you mean
roses?" "Yeah, that's it." He turned and shouted to his wife "Hey
Rose, do you remember. . .".

It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.

Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
bone every time.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> > It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
>
> Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
> bone every time.

I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.

Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_12_]]

Morgans wrote:
>>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
>> Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
>> bone every time.
>
> I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>
> Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? ;-)

I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 25, 12:18*am, Dan > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> >>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
> >> Yep. *I've used that joke and will use it again. *It tickles my old funny
> >> bone every time.
>
> > *I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>
> > Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? *;-)
>
> * *I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
> time.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I look old because it's been a long journey and some of the roads
weren't paved.

[Dan[_12_]]

a wrote:
> On Aug 25, 12:18 am, Dan > wrote:
>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
>>>> Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
>>>> bone every time.
>>> I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>>> Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? ;-)
>> I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
>> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
>> time.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I look old because it's been a long journey and some of the roads
> weren't paved.

When God said "let there be light" I threw the switch. My dog fetched it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[george]

On Aug 25, 4:18*pm, Dan > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> >>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
> >> Yep. *I've used that joke and will use it again. *It tickles my old funny
> >> bone every time.
>
> > *I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>
> > Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? *;-)
>
> * *I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
> time.

Beneath our gnarled wrinkled carcasses we are all 19 :-)

[Dan[_12_]]

george wrote:
> On Aug 25, 4:18 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
>>>> Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
>>>> bone every time.
>>> I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>>> Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? ;-)
>> I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
>> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
>> time.
>
> Beneath our gnarled wrinkled carcasses we are all 19 :-)
>

In my case I refuse to age. I prefer to ferment.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>> I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a
rough
>>> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
>>> time.
>>
>> Beneath our gnarled wrinkled carcasses we are all 19 :-)
>>
>
> In my case I refuse to age. I prefer to ferment.

I think all of these comments have caught me truly.... speechless.

I can't find appropriate words to lift me up above all of the.....
.....Bull****! ;-)

Perhaps a Huey? Perhaps a Sky? <g>

It would have to have pretty good high altitude performance, because......
It's gotten pretty darn deep around here! :-))))
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_12_]]

Morgans wrote:
> >>> I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a
> rough
>>>> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
>>>> time.
>>> Beneath our gnarled wrinkled carcasses we are all 19 :-)
>>>
>> In my case I refuse to age. I prefer to ferment.
>
> I think all of these comments have caught me truly.... speechless.
>
> I can't find appropriate words to lift me up above all of the.....
> ....Bull****! ;-)
>
> Perhaps a Huey? Perhaps a Sky? <g>
>
> It would have to have pretty good high altitude performance, because......
> It's gotten pretty darn deep around here! :-))))

Look, pal, I take offense to your referring to my lies as BS. I am
too lazy to pile BS that deep. I prefer the term horse apples. One
requires a shovel, the other requires a mucking fork. Besides, anyone
can lie. It takes talent to lie big and consistently.

Now, when it comes to war stories: there I wuz, me and Ike, that's
General Eisenhower to you.....

On the other hand, politicians are best described as manure salesmen
with mouthfuls of samples.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Lamb]

On 8/25/2010 3:25 PM, george wrote:
> On Aug 25, 4:18 pm, > wrote:
>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> It's been a long recovery but he's OK now, except for the limp.
>>>> Yep. I've used that joke and will use it again. It tickles my old funny
>>>> bone every time.
>>
>>> I have to admit, I missed that one, the first time around.
>>
>>> Could it be that I'm not quite as old as you two? ;-)
>>
>> I'm only 29, really I am, I just look like this because I had a rough
>> youth. Now, of you don't like that lie I will tell you a better one next
>> time.
>
> Beneath our gnarled wrinkled carcasses we are all 19 :-)
>


Hear Him!

[Jim Logajan]

a > wrote:
> I read or perhaps misread that rescue chutes might bring you to the
> ground at about 25 feet per second. This is about as fast as you'd be
> falling from a bit less than a 10 foot free fall under 1 G. I
> remember an old physics axiom that states if you were in free fall
> under 1 G for 10 feet, and you stopped in 1 foot, you'd experience an
> average of 10 Gs.

Your recollection of the physics is correct. The basic equation for uniform
accelerations (no drag, no initial vertical speed) is:

a*Sa = g*Sg

where "a" is the deceleration rate, "Sa" is the deceleration distance, "g"
is the acceleration of gravity, and "Sg" is the distance the object fell
during free fall.

Derivation is left as an exercise for the student. :-)

> 10 Gs in a sitting position is pretty much in the
> tolerance range of most of us. Ejection seats in fighters provide
> about 15 Gs over more than several feet.

As to what gee forces are survivable, Wikipedia appears to have a
surprisingly decent article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

[Morgans[_2_]]

"a" > wrote

I was thinking I might get a foot out of the Mooney. The main gear
bone is attached to the wing spar bone and that is one piece, going
thru the fuselage. You're not sitting on the spar, but almost. The
wings are not attached to the cabin, the cabin is built around the
wing spar.
***********************
Yeah, a Mooney might only get a foot. They are not known for the most
"forgiving" landing gear.

That aside, I'll take a Mooney as a get there airplane, any day!
--
Jim in NC

[Ala]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 23, 10:50 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Garry O" > wrote
>
> > While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
> > would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted
> > and
> > F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
> > can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
> > replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)
>
> Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. <g>
>
> On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
> had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.
>
> Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
> remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
> easily) This, with a smile on her face.
>
> I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

>Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
>doesn't it?

Thanks - good points.

Hope all is well - how much snow predicted