Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

Mike Borgelt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton wrote:

The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.

With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
etc?

I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I
could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8
in Oz(he's had one bailout)

Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a
personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight
considerations now).

Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs
eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends.
From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots
with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a
personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor...

I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and
seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree...

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4029b95f$1@darkstar...
Mike Borgelt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton wrote:

The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.

With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
etc?

I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I
could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8
in Oz(he's had one bailout)

Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a
personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight
considerations now).

Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs
eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends.
From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots
with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a
personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor...

I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and
seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree...

I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see
videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the
manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
inspiring.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see
videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the
manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
inspiring.

They've been given the real test...by an owner.

http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html

"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I
see
videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all
the
manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
inspiring.

They've been given the real test...by an owner.

http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html


I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
second.

I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.

I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:


I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
second.

I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.

At 500 feet and below (typical ultralight altitude),
I'm gonna go out on a limb and
say they are DEFINITELY safer...from a midair in a gaggle at a bijillion
feet...
I dunno...


I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Comparing a 3000# airplane to a 800# glider is apples and oranges
in my opinion.

And on a Sparrowhawk at 500#, I'd take a BRS in a heartbeat.

If you want real statistics on sink rate with chute, and
survivability, use the ultralight stats. There are many
reported saves...

And if you want to sink slower, just get a bigger chute...

900 lbs aircraft, canister, 135mph terminal, 6 yr repack,
25lbs weight, 2 ft long and 8" diameter...

www.ultralightnews.com/brs1/BRS2.HTML
has the weights and sizes...

"I have recieved no compensation for this posting and
am not in any way an employee or beneficiary of
BRS, although I flown aircraft using their
products. This is not to say, however, that I would
not accept a nice shiny new BRS if offered."
Yeah, RIGHT!! :P

Bill Daniels wrote:
"nafod40" wrote

They've been given the real test...by an owner.

http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/a...cirrusave.html


I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
second.

I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.

I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Some thoughts to consider...
1. Glider weighs a lot less than a Cirrus, since you don't have engine,
etc. to lower to ground = slower land speed. Want slower landing? Use
bigger chute. Someone will come up with airbag deployment too. Should be
cheap, as they are mass produced for cars.
2. Landing in prone position vice upright, you can accept a hell of a
big force. Gliders put you in the right position to land.
3. Jumping out of plane at low levels can be hazardous to your health.
4. With whole plane chute, you still have an intact glider when all is
said and done. With personal chute, you have scrap.

I personally sat in (never used...knock on wood) an ejection seat for a
few thousand hours, but they weigh more than some gliders, I think.