![]() |
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama
wrote: ...I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built... Thoughts? I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea. If there were an affordable and reliable system that was guaranteed to work in all sailplanes across a wide variety of conditions, I'd probably not object so strenuously. However, that is not the case. The systems that are available are bulky and expensive, and can be difficult or impossible to fit into something small aircraft where interior volume is so scarce. Sailplanes present special challenges for ballistic recovery systems. Their requirement for low drag can make it difficult to install the suspension bridles without performance-robbing bulges and blisters, and their wide range of operating weights makes it hard to tailor the parachute size to the aircraft mass. My strongest issue with the idea is the underlying assertion that there is or should be some bureau or agency responsible for making BRS "mandatory in every new glider built." Required for gliders that receive type certificates after some certain date, I can sort of see that. That's the sort of thing that the NTSB might recommend to the FAA in a decade or two, and which the FAA might take under advisement for a similar span. But required for gliders being manufactured under current type certificates? No, sorry, I think that retroactive requirements like that set a very, very bad precedent. And required for Experimental, Amateur-built, and Experimental, Racing gliders? No way. That would very much stifle the kind of innovation and competition that those (non-)certification categories are designed to foster. That said, in the glider I am developing now, I have indeed reserved a modest volume for a ballistic parachute system should some customers express an interest in it. However, that volume is not available in sustainer or self-launch versions, so you would have to choose between the motor and the parachute. In the overall scheme of things, the place to look for the deployment of new systems like this are customers and insurance companies. Both of them vote with dollars, and in the free market that's pretty much the only vote that matters. Thanks, Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-104 Chutes out | Glen in Orlando | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 9th 09 07:01 PM |
Square chutes - ExtreemSports.wmv (0/1) | Tech Support | Soaring | 4 | December 15th 08 07:40 PM |
Square Chutes... | sisu1a | Soaring | 4 | December 9th 08 06:04 PM |
Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 60 | February 14th 04 08:08 PM |