If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"Morgans" wrote in message news "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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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! .. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"a" wrote Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context, doesn't it? ********************* Ouch!!! -- Jim in NC |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA falling further into chaos | TheTruth[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | March 12th 08 06:05 AM |
Batavia Air 737 loses wing segment in flight | BernieFlyer[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | November 25th 07 10:05 AM |
FAA Chaos | MyCoxaFallen | Piloting | 12 | June 6th 05 04:54 PM |
DC Chaos, 9/11 and other assorted FAA diasters | MyCoxaFallen | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 2nd 05 06:23 PM |