RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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.

a wrote:
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.

Agreed.

In the video, didn't the
airplane come down nose fist?

I have the feeling that the recovery parachute couldn't have saved
that particular airplane. Have you seen the BRS demonstration video of a
Cessna, if memory serves, deploy and gently land the airplane. I wonder
if anyone can make a blanket claim as to the relative value of the system.

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.

Personally, I feel if one has the money, space and weight allowance
for a recovery parachute it's not a bad investment. Having seen first
aid and survival kits in sad shape I wonder if the owners of recovery
systems would keep up on the inspection requirements.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European
ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all
our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had
several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute.

Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system.
Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are
very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the
engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency
landing, like over water, forest or swamp.

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace
the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage.

Oliver

"Oliver Arend" wrote

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).

Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 19, 8:05*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).

Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.
--

When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper
cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some
(?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is
equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact
will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off.
So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes
structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is
moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be
the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced
landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea
compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good
device to have as an option but also has some negative features and
needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine
fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in
the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin
penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or
crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point.

Cheers

"Flaps_50!" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).

Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft,
and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled
and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
the
aircraft and the passengers.
--

When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper
cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some
(?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is
equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact
will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off.
So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes
structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is
moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be
the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced
landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea
compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good
device to have as an option but also has some negative features and
needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine
fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in
the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin
penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or
crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point.

Cheers

One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
what a crock!!
if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her capabilities
then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest thing from
their mind and rather they have taken a course of action designed to make
their survivability a priority.
honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
"maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to hurt"

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ"

"Garry O" wrote

One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
what a crock!!

I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps
was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail
down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type
aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail. I was
stating that the fuselage, landing gear and seats offered much better crush
distance (equating directly to peak G forces experienced by the occupants)
that would a tail up landing. I stick by that observation for well designed
aircraft. The landing gear will crush, and so will proper seat supports,
thus giving maximum protection to the people in the plane.

if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her
capabilities then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest
thing from their mind and rather they have taken a course of action
designed to make their survivability a priority.
honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
"maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to
hurt"

I never have been in a position to pull a chute in a plane, but I purposely
drove off an inline in a van rather than roll down the incline, and in that
case, I most definitely thought "this is going to hurt" in one millisecond
during the crash. I made the right choice, because I did not roll, and I
most certainly would have if I had not made the conscious choice to drive
directly off of the drop-off.

If a person decides to pull a chute, they most likely have decided the plane
is a write-off. It only could be a bonus if it is not.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).

Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.


An engine fire in this particular accident would have been a bummer...

--

Richard Lamb

Morgans wrote:
Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.

The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.

I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
story.

On Aug 22, 9:56*am, John Smith wrote:
Morgans wrote:
Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the
aircraft and the passengers.

The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.

I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
story.

The aftermarket instillation of a Cirrus like rescue parachute in
Cessnas most often has the canister in the luggage compartment, and
it appears the harness attaching it to the firewall and aft on the
airplane are under a fiberglass fairing that gives way when the
parachute is deployed. The airplanes are intended to come down more or
less flat.

In a significant number of cases (the statistics are cited in
references elsewhere in this thread) the airplane was not totaled
after being brought down under the parachute.