On Aug 18, 10:57*pm, Dan wrote:
a wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? *I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
I would prefer the plane not to break up...
Tom De Moor
* *I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. 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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.

* *One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
(is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not to make too fine a point of it, but if the recovery parachute
deployed because the pilot pulled a wing off, the notion of
'repairable' vs write-off comes into play. In the video, didn't the
airplane come down nose fist? In the case of the Cirrus, they come
down pretty fast, and I don't know, in the US at least (excepting
Nebraska, where the flatness seems to go on for ever) how likely it is
the airplane would come down to a flat surface.

Recovery parachutes can be thought of as life insurance policies,
where the company is betting you're going to live and you're betting
you're going to die: you objective is to let the insurance company, or
the parachute, never have to be used.