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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Borgelt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton wrote: The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute you do have steering on most rigs nowadays. With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff etc? I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8 in Oz(he's had one bailout) Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight considerations now). Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends. From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor... I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message news:4029b95f$1@darkstar... Mike Borgelt wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton wrote: The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute you do have steering on most rigs nowadays. With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff etc? I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8 in Oz(he's had one bailout) Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight considerations now). Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends. From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor... I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree... I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence inspiring. Bill Daniels |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence inspiring. They've been given the real test...by an owner. http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders' hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per second. I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute. At 500 feet and below (typical ultralight altitude), I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are DEFINITELY safer...from a midair in a gaggle at a bijillion feet... I dunno... I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute. Comparing a 3000# airplane to a 800# glider is apples and oranges in my opinion. And on a Sparrowhawk at 500#, I'd take a BRS in a heartbeat. If you want real statistics on sink rate with chute, and survivability, use the ultralight stats. There are many reported saves... And if you want to sink slower, just get a bigger chute... 900 lbs aircraft, canister, 135mph terminal, 6 yr repack, 25lbs weight, 2 ft long and 8" diameter... www.ultralightnews.com/brs1/BRS2.HTML has the weights and sizes... "I have recieved no compensation for this posting and am not in any way an employee or beneficiary of BRS, although I flown aircraft using their products. This is not to say, however, that I would not accept a nice shiny new BRS if offered." Yeah, RIGHT!! :P |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"nafod40" wrote in message ... Bill Daniels wrote: I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence inspiring. They've been given the real test...by an owner. http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders' hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per second. I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute. I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute. Bill Daniels |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
At 16:18 11 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
snip... At 500 feet and below (typical ultralight altitude), I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are DEFINITELY safer...from a midair in a gaggle at a bijillion feet... I dunno... It would remove the temptation to stay with the glider and try to save it. You pull the bung and float down on the BRS, rather than descend from 3000', have the tailplane part company with the fin at 1000' and bunt straight into the ground. And, before Mark claims that scenario is far fetched, it has already happened with fatal consequences. I would have a BRS if it was possible to retrofit one to my glider at a sensible price. snip... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Houlton wrote in message ...
Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes? Dave Hi, Dave. The short answer to your question is, yep! http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...S_in_HP-16.htm You can do a google search and find a long discussion regarding this (initiated by me, that time...not the first discussion on this) from around last Christmas (02). Short form: I made the decision to put a BRS 1050 in my HP-16 because: 1. I am a big guy. Whilst I did fit in the glider with a parachute, the ergonomics were challenging. Without a parachute, I am in sumptious luxury. 2. I could. The glider is experimental, and changes are trivial. A certificated glider would be much more difficult to do this in, requiring a 337 which may or may not be possible (I'd bet on not). 3. While the cost was higher than a regular parachute (around $2500, if memory serves, now around $2900) the weight penalty was not significantly higher at 24 pounds for the 1050 softpack model I bought. Repacks are sort of a push, given that they are quite expensive, but only need done every 6 years. I reached the decision after doing a moderately exhaustive search on parachute saves in gliders. Basically, it looked to me like most fatalities would not have been prevented by the usual open the canopy and bail out...given the relative low altitude of most. Read the thread for more on that, please. At any rate, I feel I can get a canopy over me at anything above around 250 feet, perhaps lower, so I have a better margin of safety than if I needed to open the canopy and bail out...I think most believe that you need to start that at around 1500-2000 feet above ground. I believe that my parachute will lower me relatively nose-down, and as such, my legs will protect me to some extent on landing. I feel safer surrounded by the aluminum and plexiglass than if I were on my own under canopy, given that I'll likley not be descending into a prepared drop zone, more likely trees or worse...and I have around 500 sport parachute and military jumps, so I speak from knowledge there. No, thank God, I have not had the opportunity to use it, and hope that I never find out if it'll work...but it comforts me to know it's there. I hope that helps. Jim |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
"nafod40" wrote They've been given the real test...by an owner. http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders' hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per second. I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute. I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute. Some thoughts to consider... 1. Glider weighs a lot less than a Cirrus, since you don't have engine, etc. to lower to ground = slower land speed. Want slower landing? Use bigger chute. Someone will come up with airbag deployment too. Should be cheap, as they are mass produced for cars. 2. Landing in prone position vice upright, you can accept a hell of a big force. Gliders put you in the right position to land. 3. Jumping out of plane at low levels can be hazardous to your health. 4. With whole plane chute, you still have an intact glider when all is said and done. With personal chute, you have scrap. I personally sat in (never used...knock on wood) an ejection seat for a few thousand hours, but they weigh more than some gliders, I think. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Borgelt wrote in message . ..
some snippage The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute you do have steering on most rigs nowadays. With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff etc? some MORE snippage Mike Borgelt Actually, Mike, on that we disagree. Unless you are using a square canopy for your personal chute, you have very little choice on where you are gonna land...and hitting the tree, high voltage lines or over the cliff are gonna suck less if you have some aluminum or fiberglass around you. Well, that was my decision for sure. Oh, and keep in mind that as I disagree with you, I do it with all due deference to someone as distinguished in our sport as yourself (no sarcasm, I meant that!) Jim |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Just wondering...
Do Americans wear parachutes whilst flying in competitions? I went to fly at one of the big clubs in the states, no-one wore any chutes but there were some availiable. so we wore them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Puchaz spin count 23 and counting | henell | Soaring | 116 | February 20th 04 12:35 AM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |