Introduction: Hello everyone.

[Don W]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to introduce myself to the group since I'll probably
be around here for a while. I've been lurking for the last several
months.

My name is Don, and I'm a retired electrical engineer / business owner
from Austin, TX. I soloed a Cessna 150 in 1973, and took my check ride
in a Grumman Cheetah in 1976. IFR rated in 2003, so that makes me a
slow learner I guess. I was sixteen in 1973, so those of you who are
good at math can figure out that I'm somewhere between "been there" and
"old fart".

My dad talked me out of buying a BD-5 kit in the 70's (whew!)

I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.

Realistically, I'm more likely to buy something that already flys, but
you never know. Right now, I'm in the middle of house remodeling, and
my wife looks daggers at me when I even talk about airplane kits ;-)

Looking forward to learning something from those of you who aren't
scared of your wives...

Don W.

[.Blueskies.]

"Don W" > wrote in message . com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'd like to introduce myself to the group since I'll probably
> be around here for a while. I've been lurking for the last several
> months.
>
> My name is Don, and I'm a retired electrical engineer / business owner
> from Austin, TX. I soloed a Cessna 150 in 1973, and took my check ride
> in a Grumman Cheetah in 1976. IFR rated in 2003, so that makes me a
> slow learner I guess. I was sixteen in 1973, so those of you who are
> good at math can figure out that I'm somewhere between "been there" and
> "old fart".
>
> My dad talked me out of buying a BD-5 kit in the 70's (whew!)
>
> I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
> the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
> ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
> before deployment.
>
> Realistically, I'm more likely to buy something that already flys, but
> you never know. Right now, I'm in the middle of house remodeling, and
> my wife looks daggers at me when I even talk about airplane kits ;-)
>
> Looking forward to learning something from those of you who aren't
> scared of your wives...
>
> Don W.
>

Hello Don from someone who first soloed in a C-150 in '75. I now have BD4 parts in the hanger that my wife insisted
that I buy. Lucky me!

--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote

> I'd also like it to have a built in
> ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
> before deployment.

Welcome, Don!

Wow, you really want to jump in, huh? <g>

Realistically, getting the engine out sounds like such a complicated task,
as to be un-do-able in a plane of this size, and probably even in a much
larger size.

You have to sever the fuel lines/fuel system, in a running engine, and that
sounds like fire.

You have to get the engine mounts separated, and that sounds like explosive
bolts in a hot environment, and they need to be 110% reliable. Problems
there.

The engine has to have all of the other systems separate cleanly, and the
cowl get out of the way. Reliability problems, it would seem to me, since
they also have to be assured to not separate during normal operations.

How would it jettison? Rocket type of things, like an ejection seat? That
is a pretty volatile system, and it would have to put up with the difficult
environment of the engine compartment.

There is certainly more to consider, but that is enough for now, I think.

I have to ask, what is the payoff of having the engine separate? Less
weight for the chute? OK, but chutes can be made bigger to handle all of
the weight. Not having the heavy engine to worry about it shifting into the
cockpit during a parachute landing? OK, but the landing should be at a
relatively low speed, and that should not be a big concern. Cirrus seems to
have a pretty big engine, and I have not heard of any engine/cockpit
interactions that were a problem.

I think if you want a challenge to work on, look for something else. The
engine needs to stay right where it was put, IMHO. Work on a chute for the
bigger, heavier plane, perhaps.
--
Jim in NC

[Don W]

Hi Jim,

I was _mostly_ kidding about jettisoning the engine. The problem
is how to do a ballistic chute in a pusher _without_ first jettisoning
the engine. There is a problem with the chute streaming behind the
aircraft and getting into the prop! I've thought about twin chutes
deployed from pods in the wing, etc., but that has big problems if
the chutes do not deploy identically.

Jettisoning the engine _might_ be possible if you built the firewall
to attach to the airframe with some type of latching mechanism that
would unlatch with a lever. In a pusher the firewall is being pushed
into the airframe by the engine instead of pulled out of it, so the
main problem would be to support the weight of the engine, and provide
counter torque for the rotation of the prop.

The problem of the fuel lines could be dealt with by quick disconnects
similar to the ones now required in most states at gas stations. When
they pop apart, spring loaded balls stop the flow of fuel on both sides
of the disconnects. You could have a latch which holds them
together until your "jettison" lever is pulled.

The problems left are the control cables: Throttle, Mixture, and Prop.
It _might_ be possible to build an intermediate box which would transfer
force from one set of cables to a secondary set. The cables from the
cockpit controls would run to the box, and a second set of cables would
run from the box to the engine. The box would be designed to pull apart
during engine jettison.

The only thing left that I can think of is the heater hose for cabin
heat. An intermediate box with the hose for the engine on one side
and a hose to the cabin on the other should take care of that.

Have I left anything out? ;-)

Oh yeah. The cowl is attached to the firewall portion that
seperates from the aircraft, so it goes with the engine. Four
small air cylinders and a 10 cubic foot scuba pony bottle
with compressed air at 2000 PSI make sure that the firewall
seperates cleanly from the aircraft. The two chutes (big one
for the aircraft, and smaller one for the engine/cowl/firewall)
are stored between the firewall and the rest of aircraft and
deploy when they are seperated. The whole assembly is made
such that you can remove the cowl, support the engine, and
seperate the two parts for inspection.

When you pull the lever, the compressed air blows the firewall
off the back, seperating the fuel lines, control box, and
heater box, and exposing the chutes.

Could work, and would be a lot of fun to design and test ;-)

What do you think?

Don W.

Morgans wrote:
> "Don W" > wrote
>
>
>> I'd also like it to have a built in
>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>before deployment.
>
>
> Welcome, Don!
>
> Wow, you really want to jump in, huh? <g>
>
> Realistically, getting the engine out sounds like such a complicated task,
> as to be un-do-able in a plane of this size, and probably even in a much
> larger size.
>
> You have to sever the fuel lines/fuel system, in a running engine, and that
> sounds like fire.
>
> You have to get the engine mounts separated, and that sounds like explosive
> bolts in a hot environment, and they need to be 110% reliable. Problems
> there.
>
> The engine has to have all of the other systems separate cleanly, and the
> cowl get out of the way. Reliability problems, it would seem to me, since
> they also have to be assured to not separate during normal operations.
>
> How would it jettison? Rocket type of things, like an ejection seat? That
> is a pretty volatile system, and it would have to put up with the difficult
> environment of the engine compartment.
>
> There is certainly more to consider, but that is enough for now, I think.
>
> I have to ask, what is the payoff of having the engine separate? Less
> weight for the chute? OK, but chutes can be made bigger to handle all of
> the weight. Not having the heavy engine to worry about it shifting into the
> cockpit during a parachute landing? OK, but the landing should be at a
> relatively low speed, and that should not be a big concern. Cirrus seems to
> have a pretty big engine, and I have not heard of any engine/cockpit
> interactions that were a problem.
>
> I think if you want a challenge to work on, look for something else. The
> engine needs to stay right where it was put, IMHO. Work on a chute for the
> bigger, heavier plane, perhaps.

[Rich S.]

"Don W" > wrote in message
t...
> There is a problem with the chute streaming behind the
> aircraft and getting into the prop!

So - the problem is the prop, not the engine. Think along those lines.

Welcome to the feud. There are several sub-groups in this Appalachian-style
family, one or more you must join as you develop your persona. No need to
consciously decide, your postings will indicate where you fit. It could be
over there in the meadow, grazing with the "Ilk". The RAH 15 is a closed
group, but you didn't want to be with them, anyhow. You're obviously not a
serious troller - heck you even gave us a real sounding name. There's the
pro-auto and the anti-auto and the "I can't even spell Otto" adherents. The
one's I've grown fond of are the "Ploinks". I probably have a list of them
around here someplace. Their only vice is they keep changing their email
addresses so I need to repeatedly ploink them. There's Latchless and Juan,
and Ludwig and many others.

Again, welcome and come on down!

Rich "Beware the BWB, my son. . ." S.

[Richard Lamb]

I dunno, Don.
ESPECIALLY about the "testing" part. <g>

What's wrong with just shutting the engine down before pulling
the ripcord?


Richard

[Rich S.]

"Don W" > wrote in message
t...

Don...........

I forgot one of the biggest groups - the bottom feede. . . er . . . posters.
Don't **** them off. they eat top posters like a Pratt & Whitney eats
hi-test. It looks as if you may be a top poster, hence this warning. Govern
yourself accordianly.

Rich S.

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:49:40 GMT, Don W
> wrote:

>Hi Jim,
>
>I was _mostly_ kidding about jettisoning the engine.

Devil's Advocate: Why is a pusher/canard the design requirement? It
would be much easier to use a 250kt Lancair ES-P as the root design
and adapt it to use a chute.

The inclusion of a chute somewhat offsets the reduction of stall/spin
safety in going from a canard to conventional layout.

[Montblack]

("Rich S." wrote)
> I forgot one of the biggest groups - the bottom feede. . . er . . .
> posters. Don't **** them off. they eat top posters like a Pratt & Whitney
> eats hi-test. It looks as if you may be a top poster, hence this warning.
> Govern yourself accordianly.


"June" is official Top Posting Month at rec.aviation.


Montblack (-10 F at noon. Brrrr!)

Lotsa ships are kept at anchor
Jest because the captains hanker
Fer the comfort they ken only get in port!

With the little tail a-swishing'
Ev'ry lady fish is wishin'
That a male would come
And grab 'er by the gills!

All the rams that chase ewe-sheep
All determined there'll be new sheep
and the ewe-sheep aren't even keepin' score!

Just because it's June, June, June!

......sorry, cabin fever. Brrrrrr!

[Don W]

Nathan Young wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:49:40 GMT, Don W
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Jim,
>>
>>I was _mostly_ kidding about jettisoning the engine.
>
>
> Devil's Advocate: Why is a pusher/canard the design requirement? It
> would be much easier to use a 250kt Lancair ES-P as the root design
> and adapt it to use a chute.

True. And it also solves the design for pressurization problem, the
250KT Vne flutter problem, etc. It just makes too much sense to be
a good solution ;-)

Of course the fastbuild kit and a new IO-540 will set you back about
$160K before avionics, paint, and interior. You could just add another
$60K and fly away in your factory certified used Cirrus SR22 sans
pressurization, but with the ballistic chute.

> The inclusion of a chute somewhat offsets the reduction of stall/spin
> safety in going from a canard to conventional layout.

I'm not as concerned about stall/spin as I am airframe/control failure
or engine out over hostile terrain. I noticed a few high altitude
breakups in the accident reports on my other favorite dreamplane--the
Lancair IVP.

Don W.

[Don W]

Hi Richard,

Richard Lamb wrote:

> I dunno, Don.
> ESPECIALLY about the "testing" part. <g>
>
> What's wrong with just shutting the engine down before pulling
> the ripcord?

Windmilling? Now if you had a full feathering prop, and the time
to wind it down it might work. There is still a chance of getting
the lines tangled in the prop even if it isn't rotating.

Don W.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Don W" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi Richard,
>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>> I dunno, Don.
>> ESPECIALLY about the "testing" part. <g>
>>
>> What's wrong with just shutting the engine down before pulling
>> the ripcord?
>
> Windmilling? Now if you had a full feathering prop, and the time
> to wind it down it might work. There is still a chance of getting
> the lines tangled in the prop even if it isn't rotating.
>
> Don W.
>

If you are going to go to the trouble of figuring out a way to eject the
engine I'd think you could come up with a prop brake to stop the thing.

While I'm not a fan of chutes and would hardly redesign an already well
designed plane to install one aren't there ULs in the pusher configuration
that have them installed?

[.Blueskies.]

"Don W" > wrote in message t...
> Hi Jim,
>
> I was _mostly_ kidding about jettisoning the engine. The problem
> is how to do a ballistic chute in a pusher _without_ first jettisoning

A shroud or other sort of barrier could be deployed just before the chute pops...

If you really want to drop the engine, forget the cables and all and do a real FADEC control. Still have to deal with
the fuel lines...

[Tater Schuld]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
> the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
> ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
> before deployment.
>
instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
chutes?

[Morgans]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
> >
> instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
> chutes?

But that might be expensive!
--
Jim in NC

[Tater Schuld]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
>> chutes?
>
> But that might be expensive!

I'll pay the postage for the email!

[Andy Asberry]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:50:54 GMT, Don W
> wrote:


>
>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>before deployment.
>

>
>Don W.

It's already been done; ejection seat!

Remember to carry a camera to prove you were not flying the plane when
it hit the school. :)

You might get enough for that smoking hole in the ground photo to buy
another plane.

[Don W]

As you know, ballistic chutes have been around for a very long time.
I also was not a fan of them until very recently. What changed my
mind were two incidents: In the first, a Cirrus suffered engine
failure at night over mountainous terrain and the pilot popped
the chute. IIRC the incident happened in Canada.
The picture I saw on the web showed the plane perched
precariously in the middle of a rock strewn slope which was so
steep that the airplane had slid backwards about 100 feet or so.
From the picture of the terrain, it was clear to me that all
four people would probably have died without the chute. As it
happened, they were not even injured. The second incident occured
January 13, 2006 and also involved a Cirrus. You can read the
NTSB report here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060118X00086&key=1

The pilot was climbing out in IMC and acquired an ice load.
ATC cleared him up to 9000 and during the climb the airplane
stalled at 80KIAS! The Cirrus went into a spin which he was
unable to recover from, so he popped the chute. The pilot
and his two passengers were uninjured.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> If you are going to go to the trouble of figuring out a way to eject the
> engine I'd think you could come up with a prop brake to stop the thing.

You wouldn't need a brake to get a fully feathering prop to stop. Even
with the propeller stopped it seems that getting the chute to deploy
without snagging risers on the prop would be problematic

> While I'm not a fan of chutes and would hardly redesign an already well
> designed plane to install one aren't there ULs in the pusher configuration
> that have them installed?

I don't know the answer to that.

Don W.

[Don W]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote
>
>>Hi Jim,
>>
>>I was _mostly_ kidding about jettisoning the engine. The problem
>>is how to do a ballistic chute in a pusher _without_ first jettisoning
>
>
> A shroud or other sort of barrier could be deployed just before the chute pops...

I'm not sure what you mean here, although I'm thinking about it...

> If you really want to drop the engine, forget the cables and all and do a real FADEC control. Still have to deal with
> the fuel lines...

Then I guess you'd need an electrical quick disconnect. Probably easier
to do. What about the prop control? I haven't been close and personal
with one of the new FADEC engines so don't know if they changed the way
the prop govenor works.

Don W.

[Don W]

Morgans wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote
>
>
>>When you pull the lever, the compressed air blows the firewall
>>off the back, seperating the fuel lines, control box, and
>>heater box, and exposing the chutes.
>>
>>Could work, and would be a lot of fun to design and test ;-)
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>
> Still too many variables, for my liking. KISS, when it comes to something
> like an emergency system of this type.
>
> Who knows what other sh... I mean crap has already hit the fan, when this is
> necessary to deploy. Can you be sure that everything will work just
> perfect, in every possible situation, when it is really, really needed? You
> know, like spinning, inverted, past Vne, total electrical failure, fire, and
> a dozen other things that I could not even think of.

I'm not sure that its possible to design a system that will work
in every situation. Even ejection seats fail occasionally and
the new ones are _really_ sophisticated.

> If the engine and prop is the problem you are concerned with, use a lead of
> steel or kevlar for the first few feet of parachute cable, to make sure that
> it is stronger than the prop. You could have the arming system shut down
> the engine, then after a short delay, the chute goes. I would also think
> that you could make a prop brake to stop the prop quickly, and prevent
> windmilling. A motorcycle disk brake should work. As long as the prop is
> stopped, I can't imagine how it could get tangled in the prop.

I've no doubt that you can stop the prop. I'd still be concerned with
some part of the chute getting wrapped around one or more prop blades
causing a tangle or other malfunction. As I think about it, I wonder
how Cirrus makes sure that they don't tangle in the vert or horz stabs.
Its kind of the same problem.

Of course, a side benefit to ejecting the engine is that you just got
rid of 400-500 lbs which would otherwise be sitting behind the back
passengers when you hit the ground.

> You no doubt have found that the group will get into mental exercises like
> this, and you know what they say about opinions... <g>

Yeah, everyones got one. Thats okay, 'cause I have mine too <g>

Don W.

[Don W]

Tater Schuld wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>before deployment.
>>
>
> instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
> chutes?
>

That makes too much sense ;-) Unfortunately, I don't know any of them
and you guys are readily available. I suspect that if I approached one
of the ballistic chute companys about this they would give me that
"you must be joking, right" look and tell me that ballistic chutes for
pushers is too thin of a market for them to go after.

[Don W]

Andy Asberry wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:50:54 GMT, Don W
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>before deployment.
>>
>>Don W.
>
> It's already been done; ejection seat!
>
Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. <g>

> Remember to carry a camera to prove you were not flying the plane when
> it hit the school. :)
>
> You might get enough for that smoking hole in the ground photo to buy
> another plane.

Don W.

[.Blueskies.]

"Don W" > wrote in message . com...
>
> Andy Asberry wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:50:54 GMT, Don W
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>>>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>>before deployment.
>>>
>>>Don W.
>>
>> It's already been done; ejection seat!
>>
> Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
> probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
> on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. <g>
>
>> Remember to carry a camera to prove you were not flying the plane when
>> it hit the school. :)
>>
>> You might get enough for that smoking hole in the ground photo to buy
>> another plane.
>
> Don W.
>

Do an escape pod ala F-111; why stop at the engine, jettison the whole plane!

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote

> I've no doubt that you can stop the prop. I'd still be concerned with
> some part of the chute getting wrapped around one or more prop blades
> causing a tangle or other malfunction. As I think about it, I wonder
> how Cirrus makes sure that they don't tangle in the vert or horz stabs.
> Its kind of the same problem.
>
I think that the chute being blown out (along with the forward motion of the
plane) would keep the chute under tension, which would at first be back and
a little up, then as the forward speed drops, almost straight up.

If that was true, you worry about the prop would be a non-issue, as long as
you get the prop stopped.

> Of course, a side benefit to ejecting the engine is that you just got
> rid of 400-500 lbs which would otherwise be sitting behind the back
> passengers when you hit the ground.

Also a non issue, I believe. The motion is almost staight down, while
descending under the chute. The only thing to suffer at impact would be the
ground underneath the plane. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Don W" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> Don...........
>
> I forgot one of the biggest groups - the bottom feede. . . er . . .
posters.
> Don't **** them off. they eat top posters like a Pratt & Whitney eats
> hi-test. It looks as if you may be a top poster, hence this warning.
Govern
> yourself accordianly.
>
> Rich S.
>
>
Indeed, a really big no-no!!!!

The P&W sips daintily by comparison. ;-)
Peter

[Peter Dohm]

----------snip-----------
> Always wondered if a plane might could still be flown under minimal power
> while "on the chute". But it would probably collapse a round parachute...
>
> Richard
>
Someone did that in a Cirrus. I believe that he powered away from a built
up area and landed in the water. My further recollection is that some
injuries occurred because the water landing prevented the undercarriage from
absorbing the energy of the "landing"--like landing a parachute in a nearly
seated position. :-(

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of
ballistic
> > chutes?
>
> But that might be expensive!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

ooooooooooooo (scapes finger)

[Peter Dohm]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
> Tater Schuld wrote:
>
> > "Don W" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >
> >>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
> >>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
> >>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
> >>before deployment.
> >>
> >
> > instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of
ballistic
> > chutes?
> >
>
> That makes too much sense ;-) Unfortunately, I don't know any of them
> and you guys are readily available. I suspect that if I approached one
> of the ballistic chute companys about this they would give me that
> "you must be joking, right" look and tell me that ballistic chutes for
> pushers is too thin of a market for them to go after.
>

Balistic Recovery Systems is the only one that I can recall, and they make
them for a wide variety of aircraft and "ultralight vehicles". Their web
address is http://brsparachutes.com/

Personally, I am NOT an advocate of the concept. I would prefer that the
parachute be attached to ME, and NOT to @##$%& airplane. FIRE is the reason
that comes most immediately to mind, but I suppose that I could think of
more with a little effort.

However, YMMV

Peter

[Don W]

..Blueskies. wrote:

>>>>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>>>>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>>>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>>>before deployment.
>>>>
>>>>Don W.
>>>
>>>It's already been done; ejection seat!
>>>
>>
>>Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
>>probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
>>on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. <g>
>>
> Do an escape pod ala F-111; why stop at the engine, jettison the whole plane!
>
I thought of that as well. It sure would get rid of a lot of weight,
and you just put all the left over avgas away from you too. I don't
think I'm smart enough to figure out the structure for the airplane+
escape pod though <sigh>. Also, did you notice that I figured out how
to ditch the TIO-540 without using any pyrotechnics? I have a feeling
that getting the pod off wouldn't be quite as simple. It sure would
allow for a smaller chute though.

Don W.

[Rich S.]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...

> You wouldn't need a brake to get a fully feathering prop to stop. Even
> with the propeller stopped it seems that getting the chute to deploy
> without snagging risers on the prop would be problematic

Don............

I see you did not pick up on my suggestion, so I'll take it one step
further.

If the *prop* is the problem, jettison the _________. (Fill in the blank)

Rich "Engines are expensive, too." S.

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:

> You no doubt have found that the group will get into mental exercises like
> this, and you know what they say about opinions... <g>

What you want to do is mount a lathe bit on a spring loaded arm. You
pull a lever and cut the prop shaft off. Deploy the chute when you feel
the prop drop off the back.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Don W]

Okay Rich, I'll bite. You must have thought up a way to do that,
but it escapes me right now. Explosive bolts like they use in
the space program?

Don W.

Rich S. wrote:
> "Don W" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>
>>You wouldn't need a brake to get a fully feathering prop to stop. Even
>>with the propeller stopped it seems that getting the chute to deploy
>>without snagging risers on the prop would be problematic
>
>
> Don............
>
> I see you did not pick up on my suggestion, so I'll take it one step
> further.
>
> If the *prop* is the problem, jettison the _________. (Fill in the blank)
>
> Rich "Engines are expensive, too." S.
>
>

[Rich S.]

"Don W" > wrote in message
om...
> Okay Rich, I'll bite. You must have thought up a way to do that,
> but it escapes me right now. Explosive bolts like they use in
> the space program?

Oh heck, Don. I was just trying to focus your problem solving skills on
where I thought the real problem was. It's not with the engine, of course -
besides, they're too hard to convince that leaving the airframe is the
proper thing to do.

I remember when I was building Esmeralda, I gave a bit of thought on how to
prevent the engine from departing the building in case I should ever toss a
prop blade. CG shift making the airframe unflyable, y'know.

I like the lathe tool idea, but there's others that might work. Since it's a
pusher, the prop would normally like to stay on something like a splined
shaft. You could have a snap-ring retainer that would resist it coming off
during an idling descent. To jettison, a rubbing block would push the snap
ring out of its groove and wind drag would yank the prop back and off the
shaft.

If it is a controllable pitch unit with separate blades, there must be a way
to retain the center section and just lose the blades. I think some of the
composite props have that happen unintentionally!

It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.

Rich S.

[Montblack]

("Rich S." wrote)
> To jettison, a rubbing block would push the snap ring out of its groove
> and wind drag would yank the prop back and off the shaft.

The Wile E Cyotte in me is seeing a spinning prop (flipped horitontal)
coming back to get me ...and/or the chute lines. Didn't factor that one in,
did ya? :-)

http://img.thefreedictionary.com/thumb/6/66/Wile_E_Coyote.jpg


> It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
> moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.

I've heard said improvements in efficency, with prop shrouds, haven't
transfered well from the chalkboard to the airframe.

http://www.midwaysailor2.com/blaine/optica.html
OA7 Optica - pusher prop shrouded aircraft.
(ANE) Anoka County-Blaine, MN
D.A.D. Days, 2003


Montblack

[Rich S.]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Rich S." wrote)
>> To jettison, a rubbing block would push the snap ring out of its groove
>> and wind drag would yank the prop back and off the shaft.
>
> The Wile E Cyotte in me is seeing a spinning prop (flipped horitontal)
> coming back to get me ...and/or the chute lines. Didn't factor that one
> in, did ya? :-)

Zee small parachute for zee prop is trailing out of zee spinner.

>> It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
>> moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.
>
> I've heard said improvements in efficency, with prop shrouds, haven't
> transfered well from the chalkboard to the airframe.

I said possible! :) It depends on who's stating the numbers. . .

http://www.moller.com/

Rich "Wanna see the elepahant??" S

[Don W]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Rich S." wrote)
>> It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
>> moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.
>
>
> I've heard said improvements in efficency, with prop shrouds, haven't
> transfered well from the chalkboard to the airframe.
>
> http://www.midwaysailor2.com/blaine/optica.html
> OA7 Optica - pusher prop shrouded aircraft.
> (ANE) Anoka County-Blaine, MN
> D.A.D. Days, 2003
>
>
> Montblack

That is one funky looking airthingamabob!

Don W.

[Don W]

Rich S. wrote:

> Oh heck, Don. I was just trying to focus your problem solving skills on
> where I thought the real problem was. It's not with the engine, of course -
> besides, they're too hard to convince that leaving the airframe is the
> proper thing to do.

Yeah, and the other thing is that you usually want them to stay firmly
attached.

> I remember when I was building Esmeralda, I gave a bit of thought on how to
> prevent the engine from departing the building in case I should ever toss a
> prop blade. CG shift making the airframe unflyable, y'know.

Yep, I know of one fatal accident that started with the engine trying to
fly on its own.

> I like the lathe tool idea, but there's others that might work. Since it's a
> pusher, the prop would normally like to stay on something like a splined
> shaft. You could have a snap-ring retainer that would resist it coming off
> during an idling descent. To jettison, a rubbing block would push the snap
> ring out of its groove and wind drag would yank the prop back and off the
> shaft.
>
> If it is a controllable pitch unit with separate blades, there must be a way
> to retain the center section and just lose the blades. I think some of the
> composite props have that happen unintentionally!

Okay, you just made me think of a way that would work for a controllable
pitch prop. Just make the retainer hub keyed to fit the prop, and when
you rotate the prop just right, it slings its blades.

Check list item: Make sure that the propellor control detent lock is
installed properly. WARNING: NEVER OPERATE THE PROPELLOR CONTROL IN
THE DETENT POSITION EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING THE BALLISTIC
CHUTE!!

>
> It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
> moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.
>
> Rich S.

I finally figured out what you mean by a "prop shroud". Duh... Yeah
that could work.

Don W.

[Rich S.]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I finally figured out what you mean by a "prop shroud". Duh... Yeah
> that could work.
>

Pushy Galore used to have one, but I couldn't find a picture taken before it
was removed.

Rich S.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
> Tater Schuld wrote:
>
>> "Don W" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>>>I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
>>>the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
>>>ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
>>>before deployment.
>>>
>>
>> instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
>> chutes?
>
> That makes too much sense ;-) Unfortunately, I don't know any of them
> and you guys are readily available. I suspect that if I approached one
> of the ballistic chute companys about this they would give me that
> "you must be joking, right" look and tell me that ballistic chutes for
> pushers is too thin of a market for them to go after.
>

http://brsparachutes.com/Default.aspx?TabId=18

There's the contact info page from their site. They have them mounted in
pusher ULs already.

[CB]

Piano hinges with cable instead of wire hold the pod to the rest of the
airframe. Size it to resist the canopy lift load. When you pull the
plug, a spring-loaded reel yanks the cable out. The chute deploys, and
the airplane falls away from you.

Best let go of the stick, since the controls are attached to the
airframe. All that's in the pod are the seats (strap in tight!). The
control panel needs to stay with the airframe, too - waaay too many
quick-disconnects to think about there. One set for the headsets is
doable, but throttle, instruments... of course, with FADEC and a full
glass cockpit all you have is a big honkin multipin plug. No. You
still have the steam gauges as backups, so you still have the
pitot/static connection to deal with.

But now you don't have any structure under you to cushion the impact.
In fact, your feet are hanging out in space a la Fred Flintstone.
Deploy an airbag once forward speed drops?

[Don W]

CB wrote:
> Piano hinges with cable instead of wire hold the pod to the rest of the
> airframe. Size it to resist the canopy lift load. When you pull the
> plug, a spring-loaded reel yanks the cable out. The chute deploys, and
> the airplane falls away from you.
>
> Best let go of the stick, since the controls are attached to the
> airframe. All that's in the pod are the seats (strap in tight!). The
> control panel needs to stay with the airframe, too - waaay too many
> quick-disconnects to think about there. One set for the headsets is
> doable, but throttle, instruments... of course, with FADEC and a full
> glass cockpit all you have is a big honkin multipin plug. No. You
> still have the steam gauges as backups, so you still have the
> pitot/static connection to deal with.
>
> But now you don't have any structure under you to cushion the impact.
> In fact, your feet are hanging out in space a la Fred Flintstone.
> Deploy an airbag once forward speed drops?
>

I like it!!! In fact, the B1B pod has an airbag to cushion the landing
IIRC.

Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
landing under chute destoys the airframe. I guess that you can
salvage the engine and the avionics, and probably control surfaces,
etc, but the rest of the airframe is toast due to the 20MPH+ touchdown.

The thing that I do like about the Cirrus is that the occupants are
likely to survive with minimal injury, and the touchdown is unlikely
to seriously damage property, or kill anyone on the ground. The problem
with an ejection pod ala F111 or B1B, or with ejection seats ala many
other military airplanes is that they preserve the occupants, but
leave the people on the ground to fend for themselves. Most of the
time that is okay...

If I was going to go to all the time and trouble to build an airframe,
and design a ballistic chute system for it, I'd like to design it such
that the airframe would survive the touchdown as well as the occupants.

(Honey, I've got good news and bad news... The good news is I'm fine,
the bad news is that the airplane I just spent the last five years
building is toast. AGGGGHHH BANG.)

The problem as I see it is how to slow the 2000LB airframe from the 15-
20MPH of the chute to stopped without breaking it. With the Velocity,
I was thinking along the lines of a nose down attitude, and something
like a BIG automotive type airbag designed such that it does a
controlled collapse on impact. That is why the pusher design was both
an asset as well as a problem. Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
seemed like a good idea. The occupants are better off being restrained
by their belts and harnesses than landing on the mains anyway. And it
wouldn't be so bad rebuilding a sacrificial nose cone compared to having
to start from scratch.

Now, back to reality...

Don W.

[kd5sak]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
>
> I like it!!! In fact, the B1B pod has an airbag to cushion the landing
> IIRC.
>
Once I was a lower level Federal Gov't. bureaucrat at one of our air
material
depots.The time was late 50s, early 60s. At that time flight tests were in
process for
the B-58 Hustler. Much shredded aluminum was distributed over portions of
soutwestern Oklahoma during that time. A crew escape pod was planned for
that aircraft but the early operational aircraft didn't have them. It was
rumored
at the time that many young officers were resigning their commissions rather
than accept assignment to the B-58 units. Whether true or not I never knew,
the aircraft I was personally involved with was the B-47.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
> seemed like a good idea.


First you say you are worried about folks on the ground then you say you
want to drop an engine on them.


> Now, back to reality...
>
> Don W.
>


Good idea.

[Don W]

The B-58 was not the only airplane that had a reputation as a
"widow maker". The early jets were all notorious for unexplained
loud explosions when not under hostile or friendly fire.

You may have met a gentleman I had the pleasure of knowing briefly,
and working for. His name was Lionel Alford, and at the time I
met him he was the number two man in the Boeing company in charge
of all Boeing Military companys. Mr. Alford had been a B-17 pilot
in Europe during WWII, and was hired by Boeing shortly after the
war to be the chief test pilot on the B-36(?). He then became the
project manager for the B-52 and worked his way up the company
hierarchy from there. I had the pleasure of flying with him a
number of times. He was an amazing fellow. He died in 2000.

Don W.

kd5sak wrote:
> "Don W" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>
>>
>>I like it!!! In fact, the B1B pod has an airbag to cushion the landing
>>IIRC.
>>
>
> Once I was a lower level Federal Gov't. bureaucrat at one of our air
> material
> depots.The time was late 50s, early 60s. At that time flight tests were in
> process for
> the B-58 Hustler. Much shredded aluminum was distributed over portions of
> soutwestern Oklahoma during that time. A crew escape pod was planned for
> that aircraft but the early operational aircraft didn't have them. It was
> rumored
> at the time that many young officers were resigning their commissions rather
> than accept assignment to the B-58 units. Whether true or not I never knew,
> the aircraft I was personally involved with was the B-47.
>
> Harold
> KD5SAK
>
>

[Don W]

If you read it carefully, you will find that I suggested allocating
a seperate chute for the 500 LB engine. Did you miss that?

Don W.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
>>seemed like a good idea.
>
>
>
> First you say you are worried about folks on the ground then you say you
> want to drop an engine on them.
>
>
>
>>Now, back to reality...
>>
>>Don W.
>>
>
>
>
> Good idea.
>
>

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote

> Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
> landing under chute destoys the airframe.

That has been batted around before. It is not true, in most cases. All but
a few are flying again, IIRC.

The strap that attaches the chute to the airframe is under a layer of
gelcoat, and that is ripped off, so the strap needs to be replaced, and
gelled over, but aside from that, if the aircraft does not hit any uneven,
damaging objects, there will be little extra work to do.

> The problem as I see it is how to slow the 2000LB airframe from the 15-
> 20MPH of the chute to stopped without breaking it.

That is done by a sliding ring around the risers. When the chute first
pops, the ring holds the chute almost closed, but as the speed slow, the
outward pressure on the ring lessens, and the ring begins sliding down to
the attachment ends of the risers, allowing the chut to deploy to full
diameter.

I'm not sure if I got all of the technical names right, as I don't see any
reason to leave a perfectly good airplane, or even one that is in fair
condition! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Don W]

Hi Jim,

Morgans wrote:
> "Don W" > wrote
>
>
>>Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
>>landing under chute destoys the airframe.
>
>
> That has been batted around before. It is not true, in most cases. All but
> a few are flying again, IIRC.

This is news to me, however I can't refute it. I'll check with Cirrus
and get back to you. My understanding was that the impact usually drove
the landing gear up into the wings, and was severe enough that the FAA
would not recertify the airplane as airworthy because of the
inability to completely inspect a "plastic" aircraft for hidden damage.

Once again, I'll try to check into it and get back to you.

> The strap that attaches the chute to the airframe is under a layer of
> gelcoat, and that is ripped off, so the strap needs to be replaced, and
> gelled over, but aside from that, if the aircraft does not hit any uneven,
> damaging objects, there will be little extra work to do.
>
>
>>The problem as I see it is how to slow the 2000LB airframe from the 15-
>>20MPH of the chute to stopped without breaking it.
>
>
> That is done by a sliding ring around the risers. When the chute first
> pops, the ring holds the chute almost closed, but as the speed slow, the
> outward pressure on the ring lessens, and the ring begins sliding down to
> the attachment ends of the risers, allowing the chut to deploy to full
> diameter.
>
Actually, what I was referring to was slowing the aircraft from the
20MPH descent under the chute to a sudden stop upon ground impact. You
are correct that the amazing folks at BRS and elsewhere have worked out
a good system for slowing a 2000+ LB airplane from 200 Kts to 20 MPH.

The problem is that the slower you want the descent to be, the bigger
the parachute has to be, until it is unmanageably large (and heavy).

> I'm not sure if I got all of the technical names right, as I don't see any
> reason to leave a perfectly good airplane, or even one that is in fair
> condition! <g>

I agree in principle, as long as that sucker still responds to the
controls, and we are not somewhere over the middle range <g>

Don W.

[Don W]

Don W wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Don W" > wrote

>>> Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
>>> landing under chute destoys the airframe.

>> That has been batted around before. It is not true, in most cases.
>> All but
>> a few are flying again, IIRC.

> This is news to me, however I can't refute it. I'll check with Cirrus
> and get back to you. My understanding was that the impact usually drove
> the landing gear up into the wings, and was severe enough that the FAA
> would not recertify the airplane as airworthy because of the
> inability to completely inspect a "plastic" aircraft for hidden damage.
>
> Once again, I'll try to check into it and get back to you.
> Don W.

Okay, I called the Cirrus factory, and also did a web search. The
fellow I talked to was Walt Conley in California--a regional manager
and pilot who bought one of the first SR22's. According to Walt
the airframe is destroyed in most landings under the CAPs system. The
exception is if the airplane happens to come down in soft
treetops/brush. (CAPS is their BRS chute system)

They've had 10+ CAPs deployments with one that failed due to high speed
(estimated at 400 KTs). One landed in water, and resulted in an injury
due to the fact that the gear is designed to cushion the impact. In
the water landing, it obviously didn't do that.

In a normal CAPs landing, on hard surface or dirt, the landing gear is
driven through the wings, and designed crush zones in the airframe help
cushion the loads so that the occupants can walk away.

Don W.

[Don W]

Hi Bryan,

Seems like it would have to be a pretty big rocket to have much
effect on a 2000+ LB load, but I don't know much about those
things. If they're doing that they're pretty clever.

Don W.

Bryan Martin wrote:

> You could do what the Russians have done with parachute cargo drops. Just
> before touchdown, a rocket pack suspended in the parachute rigging fires a
> short burst to slow the descent.
>
>
> in article , Don W at
> wrote on 2/21/06 11:56 AM:
>
>
>>The problem as I see it is how to slow the 2000LB airframe from the 15-
>>20MPH of the chute to stopped without breaking it. With the Velocity,
>>I was thinking along the lines of a nose down attitude, and something
>>like a BIG automotive type airbag designed such that it does a
>>controlled collapse on impact. That is why the pusher design was both
>>an asset as well as a problem. Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
>>seemed like a good idea. The occupants are better off being restrained
>>by their belts and harnesses than landing on the mains anyway. And it
>>wouldn't be so bad rebuilding a sacrificial nose cone compared to having
>>to start from scratch.
>>
>>Now, back to reality...
>>
>>Don W.
>>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote

> Actually, what I was referring to was slowing the aircraft from the
> 20MPH descent under the chute to a sudden stop upon ground impact. You
> are correct that the amazing folks at BRS and elsewhere have worked out
> a good system for slowing a 2000+ LB airplane from 200 Kts to 20 MPH.

Have you ever looked at the drop test requirement that is required, for
certification? I would be surprised if the chute landing was any more
brutal than a parachute landing!

I don't remember how or where to find it, offhand, but perhaps someone has
it book-marked.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote

> Okay, I called the Cirrus factory, and also did a web search. The
> fellow I talked to was Walt Conley in California--a regional manager
> and pilot who bought one of the first SR22's. According to Walt
> the airframe is destroyed in most landings under the CAPs system. The
> exception is if the airplane happens to come down in soft
> treetops/brush. (CAPS is their BRS chute system)

I stand corrected. My memory had it backwards, I guess.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

It's still able to land on somebody.


"Don W" > wrote in message
et...
> If you read it carefully, you will find that I suggested allocating
> a seperate chute for the 500 LB engine. Did you miss that?
>
> Don W.
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> "Don W" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>>>Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
>>>seemed like a good idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> First you say you are worried about folks on the ground then you say you
>> want to drop an engine on them.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now, back to reality...
>>>
>>>Don W.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Good idea.
>

[Don W]

Don W wrote:

>
>
> Don W wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> "Don W" > wrote
>
>
>>>> Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
>>>> landing under chute destoys the airframe.
>
>
>>> That has been batted around before. It is not true, in most cases.
>>> All but
>>> a few are flying again, IIRC.
>
>
>> This is news to me, however I can't refute it. I'll check with Cirrus
>> and get back to you. My understanding was that the impact usually drove
>> the landing gear up into the wings, and was severe enough that the FAA
>> would not recertify the airplane as airworthy because of the
>> inability to completely inspect a "plastic" aircraft for hidden damage.
>>
>> Once again, I'll try to check into it and get back to you.
>> Don W.
>
>
> Okay, I called the Cirrus factory, and also did a web search. The
> fellow I talked to was Walt Conley in California--a regional manager
> and pilot who bought one of the first SR22's. According to Walt
> the airframe is destroyed in most landings under the CAPs system. The
> exception is if the airplane happens to come down in soft
> treetops/brush. (CAPS is their BRS chute system)
>
> They've had 10+ CAPs deployments with one that failed due to high speed
> (estimated at 400 KTs). One landed in water, and resulted in an injury
> due to the fact that the gear is designed to cushion the impact. In
> the water landing, it obviously didn't do that.
>
> In a normal CAPs landing, on hard surface or dirt, the landing gear is
> driven through the wings, and designed crush zones in the airframe help
> cushion the loads so that the occupants can walk away.
>
> Don W.
>

[Don W]

Don W wrote:

> Don W wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> "Don W" > wrote
>
>
>>>> Seriously, the thing I don't like about the Cirrus system is that the
>>>> landing under chute destoys the airframe.
>
>
>>> That has been batted around before. It is not true, in most cases.
>>> All but
>>> a few are flying again, IIRC.
>
>
>> This is news to me, however I can't refute it. I'll check with Cirrus
>> and get back to you. My understanding was that the impact usually drove
>> the landing gear up into the wings, and was severe enough that the FAA
>> would not recertify the airplane as airworthy because of the
>> inability to completely inspect a "plastic" aircraft for hidden damage.
>>
>> Once again, I'll try to check into it and get back to you.
>> Don W.
>
>
> Okay, I called the Cirrus factory, and also did a web search. The
> fellow I talked to was Walt Conley in California--a regional manager
> and pilot who bought one of the first SR22's. According to Walt
> the airframe is destroyed in most landings under the CAPs system. The
> exception is if the airplane happens to come down in soft
> treetops/brush. (CAPS is their BRS chute system)
>
> They've had 10+ CAPs deployments with one that failed due to high speed
> (estimated at 400 KTs). One landed in water, and resulted in an injury
> due to the fact that the gear is designed to cushion the impact. In
> the water landing, it obviously didn't do that.

Well, I got another call from Cirrus this morning and now I'm going to
have to admit that I was wrooooonnn... mistaken. What Walt told me last
night was not completely correct, and was corrected in the second phone
call.

Turns out that Cirrus has had 8 CAPs deployments, with one that failed
due to high speed deployment. Obviously that aircraft was destroyed.
Of the seven others, four have been repaired and returned to service.
The repairs were not trivial, nor inexpensive. The repair bill for one
of the aircraft was $80K+, but it was returned to service. Of the
remaining three aircraft, one landed in salt water, and was written off
due to corrosion issues. The other two have not yet been repaired, but
they may be later.

So, my apologies, as it turns out that more than half of the Cirrus that
came down under the parachute are flying again, and it looks like only
25% have been written off for sure.

Don W.

[Don W]

Well... yeah, but its not as bad as letting the whole airplane
drop where it will. Actually, with the new info from Cirrus,
and the idea of shrouding the prop proposed earlier in this
thread, I'm thinking now that you could do a successful BRS
without even seperating the engine or propellor. I like
that idea even better.

Don W.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> It's still able to land on somebody.
>
>
> "Don W" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>If you read it carefully, you will find that I suggested allocating
>>a seperate chute for the 500 LB engine. Did you miss that?
>>
>>Don W.
>>
>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
>>>>seemed like a good idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>First you say you are worried about folks on the ground then you say you
>>>want to drop an engine on them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, back to reality...
>>>>
>>>>Don W.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Good idea.
>>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Actually it is almost exactly twice as bad. Instead of having the aircraft
and engine land in one place you'd hit two places one with the engine and
one with the airframe.

I'm glad you are seeing the light. Hopefully you'll get to the point where
you'll se the BARS isn't the panacea you seem to think it is.


"Don W" > wrote in message
om...
> Well... yeah, but its not as bad as letting the whole airplane
> drop where it will. Actually, with the new info from Cirrus,
> and the idea of shrouding the prop proposed earlier in this
> thread, I'm thinking now that you could do a successful BRS
> without even seperating the engine or propellor. I like
> that idea even better.
>
> Don W.
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> It's still able to land on somebody.
>>
>>
>> "Don W" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>
>>>If you read it carefully, you will find that I suggested allocating
>>>a seperate chute for the 500 LB engine. Did you miss that?
>>>
>>>Don W.
>>>
>>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Don W" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Its also why shedding 1/4 of the weight
>>>>>seemed like a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>First you say you are worried about folks on the ground then you say you
>>>>want to drop an engine on them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now, back to reality...
>>>>>
>>>>>Don W.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good idea.
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Morgans]

"Don W" > wrote
>
> So, my apologies, as it turns out that more than half of the Cirrus that
> came down under the parachute are flying again, and it looks like only
> 25% have been written off for sure.

So I was not right, about being wrong? Humm, I like how today is ending!
Now, if the wifey is in a good mood tonight,......! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote
>
>>So, my apologies, as it turns out that more than half of the Cirrus that
>>came down under the parachute are flying again, and it looks like only
>>25% have been written off for sure.
>
>
> So I was not right, about being wrong? Humm, I like how today is ending!
> Now, if the wifey is in a good mood tonight,......! <g>

And at your age...
tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Just few trivial points to add to this thread:

Right now there's three Cirrus airplanes on the salvage market on this
one airplane salvage Web site:

http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/SalvageOpening

The aircraft were:

* Damaged in an off-airport landing; the page says the BRS handle was
pulled but did not deploy. The right wing broken off at the side of
body.

* Submerged in sal****er during hurricane Katrina; with hangar-swirly
rash.

* Damaged when lowered into trees under BRS canopy; the BRS deployed
during an encounter with airframe icing.

For both of the aircraft damaged in operations, it looks to me like the
wing spars have been broken off at the side-of-body. From the pictures
at the Cirrus Web site, it looks like those airplanes have a one-piece
wing spar that goes from tip to tip. Based on that, I'd guess that the
side-of-body damage is pretty much irreparable. Not that it couldn't be
done; when it comes down to it, anything can be fixed. Just that it's
less expensive to just replace the wing.

Anyhow, all three airplanes have been written off--that's why they're
on the salvage market. But to my eye, I'd guess that if you were good
with the composites you could order a replacement wing set from Cirrus
and put together two flyable aircraft out of those three. That would
return to the fleet 66% of these three "write offs."

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just few trivial points to add to this thread:
>
> Right now there's three Cirrus airplanes on the salvage market on this
> one airplane salvage Web site:
>
> http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/SalvageOpening
>


Anybody have an idea how much these salvaged aircraft sell for? This one for
example?

http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/2001CirrusSR20N244CD

[Montblack]

("Richard Lamb" wrote)
>> So I was not right, about being wrong? Humm, I like how today is ending!
>> Now, if the wifey is in a good mood tonight,......! <g>

> And at your age...
> tsk, tsk, tsk.


And with his back...
snap, crackle, pop.

OMG! I'm seeing a leather harness, an elaborate pulley system, candles, two
glasses of wine and a Barry White CD.


Montblack
Thursday is "Survivor" night at this household :-)

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Anybody have an idea how much these salvaged aircraft sell for? This one for
> example?
>
> http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/2001CirrusSR20N244CD

It's an auction, so I think that nobody is going to give you a really
good straight answer. The guys who have the best idea of their value
are those you're bidding against, and I'd bet you probably won't get
the best info from them. At least, not till the auction is over.

>From what I've seen, its sort of like playing Monopoly and trading
properties out-of-turn: The inital salvage auction is only the opener,
and you know that there's stuff going on in the background.

For a quarter-million-dollar airplane, the stakes can be pretty high,
even with the damage history depressing the market value somewhat. The
folks who are likely to bid highest and win the auction are those who
either already have replacement parts tucked away or have inside
information about how or where to get those parts. Either that, or they
have the special skills and tools to make the parts. They'll bid high
because they have confidence they can put together an airworthy
airplane with a market value strong enough to outweigh its damage
history and still yield a profit.

Another wild card is that high-value salvage articles like these
Cirruses tend to be pretty heavily blinged with the boxes and the big
screens, but nobody will make any guarantees whatsoever whether or not
that stuff still works. They won't even guarantee that it's all there -
the insurance adjuster usually takes the rackable stuff out to keep in
secure storage, but "shrinkage" of minor boxes and components while in
the yard is still too common.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Don W]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the site link. Its interesting to see pictures of the
aircraft that I just discussed with the Cirrus rep yesterday!

Actually, it looks to me that the Cirrus wings are made to be
removeable, and in the picture of the SR22 on the auction site
you can see that they have been removed. I don't think that
they cut the spar.

The Cirrus rep that I talked to mentioned that the first CAPS
deployment that they had (up north of Dallas), the rebuild cost
substantially more because the people who loaded the airplane
for transport did not know how to properly remove the wings,
so basically cut them off to fit on the truck!

Reminds me of how the damage in a gear up landing is usually
pretty minimal until the guy arrives with the tow truck and
picks up the airplane to move it ;-)

Don W.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> Just few trivial points to add to this thread:
>
> Right now there's three Cirrus airplanes on the salvage market on this
> one airplane salvage Web site:
>
> http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/SalvageOpening
>
> The aircraft were:
>
> * Damaged in an off-airport landing; the page says the BRS handle was
> pulled but did not deploy. The right wing broken off at the side of
> body.
>
> * Submerged in sal****er during hurricane Katrina; with hangar-swirly
> rash.
>
> * Damaged when lowered into trees under BRS canopy; the BRS deployed
> during an encounter with airframe icing.
>
> For both of the aircraft damaged in operations, it looks to me like the
> wing spars have been broken off at the side-of-body. From the pictures
> at the Cirrus Web site, it looks like those airplanes have a one-piece
> wing spar that goes from tip to tip. Based on that, I'd guess that the
> side-of-body damage is pretty much irreparable. Not that it couldn't be
> done; when it comes down to it, anything can be fixed. Just that it's
> less expensive to just replace the wing.
>
> Anyhow, all three airplanes have been written off--that's why they're
> on the salvage market. But to my eye, I'd guess that if you were good
> with the composites you could order a replacement wing set from Cirrus
> and put together two flyable aircraft out of those three. That would
> return to the fleet 66% of these three "write offs."
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Don W wrote:


> ... Actually, it looks to me that the Cirrus wings are made to be
> removeable, and in the picture of the SR22 on the auction site
> you can see that they have been removed. I don't think that
> they cut the spar.

I guess that we might disagree on that one point. But that's cool, I
don't know for sure, and I'm prepared to learn that what I think I know
is in error.

I know that the wings of the SR-20 series are made so that they can be
removed, I've seen several pictures of Cirrus fuselages under
maintenance and repair without the wings. It's apparent that the wing
spar fits up into a slot on the bottom of the fuselage.

However, I believe that the wing spar is continuous from tip-to-tip (or
at least close), and that while you can drop the wings off the bottom
of the fuselage, you can't separate the right wing from the left
wing--at least not without trauma.

The one picture I can find of a Cirrus wing without the fuselage on it
is here:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/airframe/airframe-d.jpg

In that factory photo, they're installing the wing internals on the
upper wing skins while the right and left wing molds are oriented to
match the two wings. The photo doesn't show the wing-fuselage joining
stuff very well, but the line of the spar does seem to be continuous.

It is possible that the wing spar separation might be hidden by the
blue-painted tooling in the photo. But from what I know about
developing composite sailplane wings I think it's unlikely. Structural
joints in composite structures tend to be bulky affairs that aren't
that easily hidden. But again, I'm prepared to be demonstrated wrong as
regards the Cirrus.

Thanks again, and best regards

Bob K.

[Richard Lamb]

Morgans wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote
>
>
>>And with his back...
>>snap, crackle, pop.
>
>
> <CHUCKLE> You are not far from the truth, but SOMEHOW, I can always manage
> the pain... for a while, then I hurt like hell! <g>
>
>>OMG! I'm seeing a leather harness, an elaborate pulley system, candles,
>
> two
>
>>glasses of wine and a Barry White CD.
>
>
> Leather - good; pulleys-no, but I'll have to think about that!;
> candles-always; wine-a nice touch; and Barry, Who??? <G>

Rent the movie "9 to 5"
That scene is absolutely hilarious!

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> And with his back...
> snap, crackle, pop.

<CHUCKLE> You are not far from the truth, but SOMEHOW, I can always manage
the pain... for a while, then I hurt like hell! <g>
>
> OMG! I'm seeing a leather harness, an elaborate pulley system, candles,
two
> glasses of wine and a Barry White CD.

Leather - good; pulleys-no, but I'll have to think about that!;
candles-always; wine-a nice touch; and Barry, Who??? <G>
--
Jim in NC

[Don W]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Earlier, Don W wrote:
>
>
>
>>... Actually, it looks to me that the Cirrus wings are made to be
>>removeable, and in the picture of the SR22 on the auction site
>>you can see that they have been removed. I don't think that
>>they cut the spar.
>
>
> I guess that we might disagree on that one point. But that's cool, I
> don't know for sure, and I'm prepared to learn that what I think I know
> is in error.
<snip>
> Bob K.
>
I don't know for sure either, and I'm also prepared to learn about
my misunderstandings. Over the years there have been a lot of them.


Don W.

[Highflyer]

"Don W" > wrote in message
et...
> Hi Bob,
>snip The Cirrus rep that I talked to mentioned that the first CAPS
> deployment that they had (up north of Dallas), the rebuild cost
> substantially more because the people who loaded the airplane
> for transport did not know how to properly remove the wings,
> so basically cut them off to fit on the truck!
>
> Reminds me of how the damage in a gear up landing is usually
> pretty minimal until the guy arrives with the tow truck and
> picks up the airplane to move it ;-)
>
>

After the hurricane in Florida last year there were a lot of airplanes at
Florida airports with wind damage ranging from minimal to total. Two
friends of mine bid on airplanes from photos that showed the damaged
airplane all in one piece. Apparently the photos were taken before their
local salvage crews moved the airplanes off the ramp. One was a Cessna 182
with minor damage to one wing tip. The other was a new Mooney with minor
damage. Between the time the aircraft went out for salvage bids and the
bids were accepted, the insurance companys local salvage crews went out with
a reciprocating saw and sawed both airplanes in half just behind the wings
to load them on a trailer. In these two cases alone the insurance companys
own salvage crew increased the loss the insurance company had to make good
by over a quarter of a million dollars. Now the insurance companies want to
increase our insurance rates to recover their huge losses. There were
literally hundreds of easily repairable airplanes sawed in half. They sawed
through wireing bundles, controls, and pressure bulkheads. In most of the
cases the damage could have been avoided entirely with just a couple of
hours worth of proper disassembly. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

10th annual r.a.h. Pinckneyville Flyin coming up May 19, 20, and 21. Make
your plans now before the motels all fill up. Send an email to Mary at
so that she will have food for you. :-)

[Highflyer]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don W" > wrote
>
>> Actually, what I was referring to was slowing the aircraft from the
>> 20MPH descent under the chute to a sudden stop upon ground impact. You
>> are correct that the amazing folks at BRS and elsewhere have worked out
>> a good system for slowing a 2000+ LB airplane from 200 Kts to 20 MPH.
>
> Have you ever looked at the drop test requirement that is required, for
> certification? I would be surprised if the chute landing was any more
> brutal than a parachute landing!
>
> I don't remember how or where to find it, offhand, but perhaps someone has
> it book-marked.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I don't remember the paragraph but it is in FAR part 23.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Rich S." wrote)
<snip>

>> It would seem that the most elegant solution lies in a prop shroud. No
>> moving parts, an increase in safety and possible efficiency improvement.
>
> I've heard said improvements in efficency, with prop shrouds, haven't
> transfered well from the chalkboard to the airframe.
>

They have and they haven't. The shroud gains efficiency by minimizing the
tip losses of the propellor. These energy losses are the rotating
propellors version of the wingtip vortices spun off the wing tips as a
concomitant of generating lift. With the prop they are the blade tip
vortices spun off the blade tips as a concomitant of generating thrust.

A tip plate can effectively increase the apparent aspect ratio of the wing
( blade ) and thereby increase its efficiency because of the resulting
decrease in the induced drag.

For this to work properly with a prop shroud the tip clearance must be very
small. Ideally approximately zero! :-)

Of course the shroud itself contributes friction drag that lowers
efficiency. This increases with airspeed. As long as the friction drag of
the shroud is smaller than the reduction in induced drag it provides to the
prop tips the shroud increases the efficiency of the shrouded prop above
that of the equivalent unshrouded prop. The folks at the Aerodynamic Magic
Works down at Mississippi State found that the tradeoff occurs at around 140
mph. Below that speed you gain efficiency with a shrouded prop. At about
that speed it really doesn't make any difference either way. Above that
speed the prop shroud gives a decrease in overall efficiency.

The shrouded prop begins to become more efficient again as the prop RPM
increases, especially at higher airspeeds where standard unshrouded
propellors begin to get into trouble with excessive airspeeds into the prop
disk. With a high RPM engine at high airspeed and high altitude the shrouded
propellor get quite favorable again. These days we call shrouded propellors
in this regime "fanjets." They have allowed modern "jet" aircraft to get
the specific fuel consumption of their engines down from around 1 pound of
fuel per pound thrust per hour, to something slightly over half that amount
of fuel. Making possible airplanes like the 747 and its "ilk."

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

10th Annual Pinckneyville rec.aviation flyin coming up May 19, 20, and 21.
Email Mary at if you are planning on attending and which
days so that she can purchase sufficient groceries. We don't want to run
out of steaks! :-)

[Richard Lamb]

Highflyer wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>>("Rich S." wrote)
>
> <snip interesting shroud discussion because of increased drag>

This might be urban legend, or might be stranger than fiction...

My next door neighbor back at Zuehl built a Zenith 601-HDS with a
Rotax 912 and electric prop. It's a heck of a setup.

Unfortunately, we didn't do this properly to collect data, but his
claim was that trimming the prop tip to a 45 degree angle (viewed
from the side) would increase thrust and efficiency both.

He claims he got a 200 rpm increase from that.
I can't really verify it, but -

When we were trying to trouble shoot his cooling problem we tufted
the cowl and took pictures. While doing that, I did notice that
the turbulence on the ground behind the prop was - gone(!).

I'd heard this same story from Tom Cassutt too, but, well, he was
having some old age problems then.

Anyway, _*IF*_ it is really working that way (and more testing is
definitely in order), I think what may be happening is as follows...

Air on the back side of the prop picks up a healthy "span wise" vector.

At the tip (forward facing angle - it's the back side, remember), the
angled part acts like a (suddenly) increased volume .

Increased volume -> lowered velocity and higher pressure.

Might is be that this could be creating an invisible pressure fence
around the circumference of the prop?

Now, admittedly, it wouldn't be much good for keeping parachute
shrouds out of the prop...

But the weight, drag, and potential thrust / efficiency increase
sure look attractive enough.

Richard

[Rich S.]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Might is be that this could be creating an invisible pressure fence
> around the circumference of the prop?

So . . . we've gone from feathers to Force Fields?

Fah!

Rich S.