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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"Oliver Arend" wrote Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/ s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage). Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and come down nose first? It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. -- Jim in NC |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
On Aug 19, 3:40*am, Oliver Arend wrote:
I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute. Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system. Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency landing, like over water, forest or swamp. Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/ s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage). In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage. Oliver I was interested in seeing if there was any factual information about damages immediately available on the use of recovery parachutes, here's the URL from manufacturer with some interesting statistics, the most telling of which is that those Cessna pilots listed here who deployed their chutes .walked away from airplanes that in most cases suffered serious damage but would fly again. http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx Looking a little more, here's something Cirrus specific. Notice the number of accidents where the PIC was instrument rated. http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nsLearned.aspx One last bit. . . http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx Probably 40% of my SEL PIC time is either or both night/IMC, and this information at least suggests the probable cost and risk of deploying a recovery chute if there's going to be a forced off field landing is less than attempting to find a suitable place to put the bird down safely. It's clear the chances of a no-damage landing are better if one flies and lands the airplane, but so are the chances of post landing fire or a non survivable crash. The guys who really study this stuff are the insurers, be interesting to see if liability rates and the like start showing lower rates for those who fly airplanes with recovery chutes. I doubt there's a large enough data base accurate statistics, but the universe of owner pilots is an attractive one for insurers (the underlying assumption being that group is self selecting as well above average in income). Decisions, decisions. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
On Aug 19, 5:35*am, "vaughn" wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message ... I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified. The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts. My knowledge of human factors suggest that this would be the case for some high risk pilots but not all. Cheers |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
On Aug 19, 8:05*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/ s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage). Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and come down nose first? It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. -- When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some (?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off. So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good device to have as an option but also has some negative features and needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point. Cheers |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
Morgans wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/ s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage). Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and come down nose first? It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. An engine fire in this particular accident would have been a bummer... -- Richard Lamb |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
rich wrote:
That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular? Notice that the wing came off intact. Looks like the struts folded in compression. Also note the very narrow angle, since the struts go to the bottom of the fuselage (on a mid wing). I'd sure like to be able to inspect the remains... -- Richard Lamb |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. To heck with the aircraft. At that point it has already done something to let me down, so to speak. Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb as much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my passengers. Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. You can't beat all the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. The gear gives and holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. The seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the passengers. The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. The seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body take all of the punishment. If the seats are nicely reclined, they help protect the back even more. The fact that you are not moving forward, like a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn. Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and other forward structures. So yes, the heck with the aircraft. Level is good. It just so happens that if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only thing that has to be replaced. Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. Shoot, most of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything to protect them. Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be gravy. -- Jim in NC |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
On Aug 19, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. *To heck with the aircraft. *At that point it has already done something to let me down, so to speak. *Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb as much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my passengers. Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. *You can't beat all the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. *The gear gives and holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. *The seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the passengers. *The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. *The seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body take all of the punishment. *If the seats are nicely reclined, they help protect the back even more. *The fact that you are not moving forward, like a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn. Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and other forward structures. So yes, the heck with the aircraft. *Level is good. *It just so happens that if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only thing that has to be replaced. Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. *Shoot, most of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything to protect them. *Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be gravy. -- Jim in NC It pays to remember to open the doors before impact, there's a chance airframe bending would otherwise jam them. Interesting though, jammed doors were not mentioned as a factor in the cases where people talked about deployed rescue parachutes, although in one case I think someone had to break open a window |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
In article , rich54
@rocketmail.com says... That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular? http://www.rans.com/s9spec.html Around 10 kUS$ for an airframe seems not overly expensif. 189 flying. As to looks and colors... Tom De Moor |
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 |