Ballistic Rocket Chute FS

[Victor Bravo]

I have a rocket deployed ballistic recovery chute for sale on ebay. It
is a Second Chantz model Aerosafe 550. One or two dents in the case but
that should not affect it's functionality. It is used... but never
used. It should be re-packed by a parachute rigger before being mounted
on an aircraft. Starting bid $100, no reserve and no fake bidding BS.
Buyer to pay your own choice of shipping and insurance. With a little
bit of care and a repack, you can save hundreds or even thousands
compared to a new BRS unit. I do NOT check this e-mail ever, so if you
have questions contact me via the ebay auction messaging.

[[email protected]]

Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO
factory support. Buyer beware....Would you trust your life to such a
big unknown? My life is worth purchasing and up-to-date emergency
parachute system. At our school, we "test fire" old rocket systems.
Sometimes (usually the older units are more pronounced) the "result" is
not encouraging.
Save your life-don't buy obsolete life support systems!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO
> factory support. Buyer beware....Would you trust your life to such a
> big unknown? My life is worth purchasing and up-to-date emergency
> parachute system. At our school, we "test fire" old rocket systems.
> Sometimes (usually the older units are more pronounced) the "result" is
> not encouraging.
> Save your life-don't buy obsolete life support systems!


That raises the questions:

How reliable are the others out there?
Is a plane chute an asset or a liability?
How safe are the rockets as they age?

[Paul J. Lewis]

Hi Group
I have a Chinook wt 11. It was weecked & had a nondeployed 2nd
chantz Chute on it. It is in grate condition, but was instaled in 1983. So I
called sevral
co that packed chutes. No one would touch it. I even called BSR. Now this
is what I found out.These chutes
have a life span of 8 yr for safty. I was told they might be good up to
twevle yr, but that is pushing it. Repacking
is done only on the orignal manfucture of the chute. One co. will not touch
another chute. I was told that my chute
had a cnance of less than 50/50 of working & that was only if water nad not
leaked in some how. So nevadaflyer
is right in his post.
Paul J. Lewis
"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO
>> factory support. Buyer beware....Would you trust your life to such a
>> big unknown? My life is worth purchasing and up-to-date emergency
>> parachute system. At our school, we "test fire" old rocket systems.
>> Sometimes (usually the older units are more pronounced) the "result" is
>> not encouraging.
>> Save your life-don't buy obsolete life support systems!
>
>
> That raises the questions:
>
> How reliable are the others out there?
> Is a plane chute an asset or a liability?
> How safe are the rockets as they age?

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21>, RAM says...
>
>This is an interesting thread.
>
>First, we're talking about about one "system", but several components. For
>historical purposes, the US Army conducted tests on parachutes that had been
>packed for up to 20 years and found that there was NO degradation in the
>reliability and function of a parachute IF IT HAD BEEN PROPERLY STORED.
>
>This means in clean and dry conditions. If your canopy did not contain any
>"mesh" products (which have been a problem in subsequent canopies) it should
>function as well as when it was new if properly cared for.

About 4 years ago at the Hawk Owners Fly in we fired 2 very old chute
systems.One was a Second chance that we had hanging around the shop for about15
years and a customer had a 1983 Hawk with a 1983 BRS ballistic unit .
Both fired on the first try and sent the chutes out to the end of the bridles
amid a cloud of what appeared to be talcum powder. Both chutes were in good
shape as far as we could tell .There was no dry rot but I don't know if the
material had deteriorated or not.We couldn't tear either one.The BRS guy sent it
in for a rebuild and the Second Chantz that I had is now used by my grand kids
for a windy weather toy. Just some observations.But I would follow the
manufacturers recomendations.

See ya

Chuck S


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"RAM" > wrote in message
news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...

> It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
> likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
> I'd
> rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
>

There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
bomb.

[RAM]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "RAM" > wrote in message
> news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...
>
> > It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
> > likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
> > I'd
> > rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
> >
>
> There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
> bomb.
>
>

That's a valid point, although I've never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a
ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of
an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the
container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated.
I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned
oxide which forms resulting in a misfire.

Still, given a choice (and still assuming I needed it) I'd risk a "misfire"
or even a burst case over the alternative. As was mentioned early on in
this thread, the BEST option is an airworthy system (in date and properly
maintained).

Rick

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/18/06 15:11, RAM wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "RAM" > wrote in message
>> news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...
>>
>> > It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
>> > likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
>> > I'd
>> > rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
>> >
>>
>> There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
>> bomb.
>>
>>
>
> That's a valid point, although I've never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a
> ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of
> an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the
> container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated.
> I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned
> oxide which forms resulting in a misfire.
>
> Still, given a choice (and still assuming I needed it) I'd risk a "misfire"
> or even a burst case over the alternative. As was mentioned early on in
> this thread, the BEST option is an airworthy system (in date and properly
> maintained).
>
> Rick
>
>

I'm not sure the decision is between having (possibly a bad) one versus
having nothing at all. Assuming you need one (some day), do you want to
pay the money to be (relatively) sure it will work, or save some money
and have it (possibly) not work.

You can argue that even if you pay for a current system, it may still
not work, but I think we can agree that the odds are a lot better that
it will.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[81mm]

Mmmmm.., I think I'd stick with RAM on this one gang.., the rest of the
answers just take the fun out of flying UL's.. (smile)..!!

[RAM]

Chuck,

Ya just can't beat the manufacturer's recommendations! It is interesting to
hear about the old systems working though, and I was especially surprised
(and happy) to hear that 20 year old rockets still functioned well!

Most canopies manufactured since the 50's have been constructed of a
calendered Nylon
derivative with F-111 being a popular material for parachute
construction. These materials are impervious to dry rot and are primarily
damage by chemical contamination and UV radiation. If there are no natural
fibers used in the construction of the system it will last a long time. I
still have serviceable skydiving canopies manufactured in the 60's!

Thanks for the data Chuck.

Rick

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21>, RAM says...
> >
> >This is an interesting thread.
> >
> >First, we're talking about about one "system", but several components.
For
> >historical purposes, the US Army conducted tests on parachutes that had
been
> >packed for up to 20 years and found that there was NO degradation in the
> >reliability and function of a parachute IF IT HAD BEEN PROPERLY STORED.
> >
> >This means in clean and dry conditions. If your canopy did not contain
any
> >"mesh" products (which have been a problem in subsequent canopies) it
should
> >function as well as when it was new if properly cared for.
>
> About 4 years ago at the Hawk Owners Fly in we fired 2 very old chute
> systems.One was a Second chance that we had hanging around the shop for
about15
> years and a customer had a 1983 Hawk with a 1983 BRS ballistic unit .
> Both fired on the first try and sent the chutes out to the end of the
bridles
> amid a cloud of what appeared to be talcum powder. Both chutes were in
good
> shape as far as we could tell .There was no dry rot but I don't know if
the
> material had deteriorated or not.We couldn't tear either one.The BRS guy
sent it
> in for a rebuild and the Second Chantz that I had is now used by my grand
kids
> for a windy weather toy. Just some observations.But I would follow the
> manufacturers recomendations.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S
>
>
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
>

[[email protected]]

RAM wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "RAM" > wrote in message
> > news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...
> >
> > > It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
> > > likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
> > > I'd
> > > rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
> > >
> >
> > There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
> > bomb.
> >
> >
>
> That's a valid point, although I've never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a
> ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of
> an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the
> container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated.
> I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned
> oxide which forms resulting in a misfire.
>

A cow-orker and his brother used to build and launch model rockets in
Williams Bay, Winsconsin. Two of them, using off-the-shelf solid
propellant motors blew up on the launch pad. Both incidents occurred
in the dead of Winter. He thinks the manufacturer of the solid motors
recommends against use below some critical temperature.

One supposes that the BRS makers have taken such effects into
consideration.

But it is not an unreasonable concern.

Besides, if you use the bang chute and it fails the particulars of the
failure mode are probably of little consequence. Don't most
manufacturers repack the chute and replace the rocket for a fee?

--

FF

[Ron Webb]

The very early chutes were deployed with what amounts to a shotgun shell,
with a big rifled slug. I don't know how well that worked or didn't. They
must have had a reason to start using rockets.

Anyway, I have a whole box of WW2 vintage 30-06 ammunition that still works
fine. I find myself wondering if any of those first chutes are still
around...

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>...>>
>
> A cow-orker and his brother used to build and launch model rockets in
> Williams Bay, Winsconsin. Two of them, using off-the-shelf solid
> propellant motors blew up on the launch pad. Both incidents occurred
> in the dead of Winter. He thinks the manufacturer of the solid motors
> recommends against use below some critical temperature.
>
> One supposes that the BRS makers have taken such effects into
> consideration.
>

That's a common failure mode for black powder rocket motors (e.g. Estes
motors). IIRC, the grain shrinks away from the case and you have too much
surface exposed which causes it to burn faster and generate more pressure
than the case can withstand.

If I were to guess, I would say that the rockets used in the balistic
'chutes is more likely an Ammonium Percloric (spelling? ain't got a clue)
based propellent with a rubber binder. They seem lest susceptable to this
particular problem.

You could ask over on rec.models.rockets...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.