![]() |
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are some good article on the DG web site about
safety features, they do explain why they went for the NOAH system. given the cost and structural issues with balistic recorery systems and the life of plastic gliders (50-100 years?) it would be a very long time before many people had one. I dont think they can cope with water ballast (200kg+ in newer 15/18m) 80-90% of new German gliders have an engine, so space and the extra weight are also issues, even turbos reduce weak weather perfformance the Noah can be retrofitted to a lot of the existing DG fleet and is not prohibitively expensive. To be fair it is also more likely to give DG a return on the investment. The system will only work with a mushroom type instrument binnacle or similar which you legs can get round either side the reaon for the Noah is why i would lean toward using the stable platform. Some test were done a while ago to simulate bailout with spin G loading by strapping weights to pilots of various ages, and seing if they could roll out of a static cockpit, the older ones simply could not get out of the cockpit as for the airbrake open warning DG also make the Piggot Hook, which is a sawtooth plate which catches the airbrake handle if it trys to slide back when not locked, could easily be copied and retrofitted to lots of types, especially in Experemental world. Pete At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote: I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry about getting out, you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground, and your chute will deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft. Mike Schumann 'Bill Daniels' wrote in message ... 'bagmaker' wrote in message ... - You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you stay in the glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes we use? I understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening designs, but there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute ever failed? Dan - Dan, Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist. Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his gliding books, I would suggest reading them. Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading! Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long enough to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height. Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum bail-out altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice..... Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out fly safe Bagger I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to land it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could control the glider from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was on the ground. I could and did. For the record, the other pilot in the mid-air did the same thing. The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks. I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing but the glider and I survived to fly again. In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom of my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to have abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less controllable, and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is an airplane loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward jumping. However, a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area at a shallow angle is likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any doubt that the glider will remain controllable - jump. The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible. This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops the list for me. Bill Daniels -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay? | Andre Volant | Soaring | 57 | November 27th 04 11:21 AM |
Region 1 Contest - will trade place to stay | Quebec Tango | Soaring | 0 | May 10th 04 03:17 PM |
How Aircraft Stay In The Air | Sarah Hotdesking | Military Aviation | 145 | March 25th 04 05:13 PM |
The Bud Light logo will stay | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 8 | November 24th 03 01:08 AM |
The Bud Light logo will stay | Cub Driver | Piloting | 7 | November 24th 03 01:08 AM |