RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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:
"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.


We don't really KNOW how it was rigged, only how it came down.
As much roll as was present, it could well be that part of the
harness got wrapped around the tailwheel or something...



--

Richard Lamb

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"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

My fault, I was replying to Oliver Arend and in particular this part "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"
A sentiment that others seemed to share. I by no means think that is all
they thought of but rather they seemed fixated on that particular argument.
While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC can
be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily replace
me, or so I would like to think ;-)

--
Garry O

"Garry O" wrote

While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. g

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Garry O" wrote

While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. g

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! g

My now ex was a tad more mercenary. Not long before I retired from
the military she and my children were "joking" about how to bump me off.
She also told me I had to sleep sometime. I guess a couple hundred
dollars SGLI was a bit tempting.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Garry O" wrote

While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. g

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! g
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 23, 10:50*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Garry O" wrote

While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I
would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and
F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC
can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily
replace me, or so I would like to think ;-)

Indeed. *And so you think and hope- that you are not easily replaced. *g

On a slightly different thought, my wife had been previously married, and
had left her ex because of some extra-curricular activities on his part.

Now, when I screw up on something (fairly large screw-ups) she is quick to
remind me, saying, (I got rid of one, already. *I can do it again, just as
easily) This, with a smile on her face.

I think (hope) she is joking on that one, too! g
--
Jim in NC

Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
doesn't it?

"a" wrote
Being introduced as "My present husband" keeps one's role in context,
doesn't it?
*********************
Ouch!!!
--
Jim in NC