Ballistic Rocket Chute FS

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.

Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO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!

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Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO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?

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
news
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Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO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?

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

"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.

"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

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

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)..!!

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