RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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

To heck with the aircraft. At that point it has already done something
to let me down, so to speak. Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
as
much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
passengers.

Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. You can't beat all
the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. The gear gives and
holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. The
seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
passengers. The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. The
seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
take all of the punishment. If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
protect the back even more. The fact that you are not moving forward, like
a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
other forward structures.

So yes, the heck with the aircraft. Level is good. It just so happens that
if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
thing that has to be replaced.

Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. Shoot, most
of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
to protect them. Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
gravy.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 19, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
the aircraft and the passengers.

*To heck with the aircraft. *At that point it has already done something
to let me down, so to speak. *Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
as
much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
passengers.

Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. *You can't beat all
the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. *The gear gives and
holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. *The
seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
passengers. *The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. *The
seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
take all of the punishment. *If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
protect the back even more. *The fact that you are not moving forward, like
a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
other forward structures.

So yes, the heck with the aircraft. *Level is good. *It just so happens that
if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
thing that has to be replaced.

Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. *Shoot, most
of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
to protect them. *Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
gravy.
--
Jim in NC

It pays to remember to open the doors before impact, there's a chance
airframe bending would otherwise jam them. Interesting though, jammed
doors were not mentioned as a factor in the cases where people talked
about deployed rescue parachutes, although in one case I think someone
had to break open a window

At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W


On 8/19/2010 10:09 PM, a wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:56 pm, wrote:
It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
the aircraft and the passengers.

To heck with the aircraft. At that point it has already done something
to let me down, so to speak. Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
as
much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
passengers.

Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. You can't beat all
the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. The gear gives and
holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. The
seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
passengers. The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. The
seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
take all of the punishment. If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
protect the back even more. The fact that you are not moving forward, like
a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
other forward structures.

So yes, the heck with the aircraft. Level is good. It just so happens that
if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
thing that has to be replaced.

Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. Shoot, most
of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
to protect them. Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
gravy.
--
Jim in NC

It pays to remember to open the doors before impact, there's a chance
airframe bending would otherwise jam them. Interesting though, jammed
doors were not mentioned as a factor in the cases where people talked
about deployed rescue parachutes, although in one case I think someone
had to break open a window

On 2010-08-20, brian whatcott wrote:
At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W

I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:

If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?

Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
put an engine in your lap.

I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
at me as potential additional hazards.

Regards,
Scott

On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
On 2010-08-20, brian wrote:
At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W

I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:

If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?

Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
put an engine in your lap.

I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
at me as potential additional hazards.

Regards,
Scott

The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
point in any plane. when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....



Brian W

On 2010-08-21, brian whatcott wrote:
On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
On 2010-08-20, brian wrote:
At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W

I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:

If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?

Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
most of the airplane weight, still above you? That's a lot of
potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
put an engine in your lap.

I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
at me as potential additional hazards.

Regards,
Scott

The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
point in any plane. when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....



Brian W

I agree that having the attachment to a hard point like an engine mount
is good - and that the tail would make a great crumple zone, but
I wonder if having that extra weight of the engine above you, and still
pressing down would cause more trouble. I also wonder, that, once
the tail hits, and starts absorbing the impact, the parachure will
actually "deflate" and continue to fall, likely faster than the
crumpling, and fall off to the side, so that when the plane falls
over, there will be nothing to slow it down.
Since there will be wind, it will likely not fall straight down, and
will hit with some lateral motion, thus increasing the risk of it
toppling with more energy. Know what I mean? I'm not sure if I'm
accuratley describing my concerns.

Regards,
Scott

On Aug 23, 2:39*pm, Gemini wrote:
On 2010-08-21, brian whatcott wrote:



On 8/20/2010 11:59 AM, Gemini wrote:
On 2010-08-20, brian *wrote:
At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from
dropping into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash
on the neck.

Brian W

I get having that distance from the tail to crush, like a crumple
zone, but wouldn't that add some significant dangers, such as:

If the plane is 20' long, and only crushes 5', wont you then be
~15' in the air when it tips, w/o the benefit of the parachute?

Also, landing on the tail, wont you also have the engine, which is
most of the airplane weight, still *above you? That's a lot of
potential energy that could cause it to collapse more, and
put an engine in your lap.

I'm still relatively new - 15hr Student Pilot, so there may be
some things I'm overlooking; but those things sorta jumped out
at me as potential additional hazards.

Regards,
Scott

The tail down approach hangs the chute off the engine mount - a hard
point in any plane. *when the tail touches down, that starts taking some
of the load, so the chute slows the remainder better....

Brian W

I agree that having the attachment to a hard point like an engine mount
is good - and that the tail would make a great crumple zone, but
I wonder if having that extra weight of the engine above you, and still
pressing down would cause more trouble. I also wonder, that, once
the tail hits, and starts absorbing the impact, the parachure will
actually "deflate" and continue to fall, likely faster than the
crumpling, and fall off to the side, so that when the plane falls
over, there will be nothing to slow it down.
Since there will be wind, it will likely not fall straight down, and
will hit with some lateral motion, thus increasing the risk of it
toppling with more energy. Know what I mean? I'm not sure if I'm
accuratley describing my concerns.

Regards,
Scott

There have been a number of actual deployments on SEL airplanes
(Cirrus, c172, c182), in a number of cases the airplane was not
totaled, and it appears that the chances of walking away or at least
living through a descent under a rescue parachute is greater than
trying to fly the airplane down.

The likelihood of being in a circumstance where one needs to deploy
the chute seems pretty small but if you need it that it is available
would be nice. It's an expensive insurance policy, expensive to
install and expensive to use. If I remember this correctly one had not
been used, according to some of the references, because of an engine
failure. I would have thought that was the most probable use!

..

"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
At least one type suspends the aircraft tail down when the chute is
deployed.
This is probably the optimum energy absorbing method, with abvious
benefits in crushing the tail first, and keeping a high wing from dropping
into the cabin. The disadvantage is the possibility of whiplash on the
neck.

If there was a nearly upright sitting position, it would be good back
support, but...
If the design had a regular nose mounted engine, that would mean a sudden
stop could allow the engine to keep going and end up on your lap.
--
Jim in NC

On Aug 19, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for
the aircraft and the passengers.

*To heck with the aircraft. *At that point it has already done something
to let me down, so to speak. *Now it's only purpose in life is to absorb
as
much of the impact energy as it can and keep that energy from me and my
passengers.

Which is why I put the "and the passengers" in there. *You can't beat all
the ways a level aircraft can protect the passengers. *The gear gives and
holds, or collapses and absorbs energy, protecting the passengers. *The
seats give and hold, or collapse and absorb energy, protecting the
passengers. *The cushions (if it has them) absorbes a little energy. *The
seats hopefully are contoured to support the passengers, thus spreading the
remaining energy throughout the body rather than making one part of the body
take all of the punishment. *If the seats are nicely reclined, they help
protect the back even more. *The fact that you are not moving forward, like
a nose first impact, will keep the engine from ending up in your lap, and if
it has a header fuel tank, it will be less likely to rupture and burn.
Also, your body will be less likely to smash into the instrument panel and
other forward structures.

So yes, the heck with the aircraft. *Level is good. *It just so happens that
if the aircraft comes to rest level and on even, forgiving terrain, well
designed landing gear and energy absorbing seats might be about the only
thing that has to be replaced.

Someone mentioned it is like dropping from 15 feet, at 23 MPH. *Shoot, most
of the time a person will survive a fall of that distance without anything
to protect them. *Having a plane and a seat to take some impact should be
gravy.
--
Jim in NC

Jim, a 15 foot fall -- think of falling from the roof of a two story
building -- does real damage, but in the case of a rescue parachute
you're in a metal cage. Level impact in something like a 182 has the
fixed gear that have a lot of flex -- a few inches of spring yield
would reduce the G forces a lot, and the history shown in one of the
urls I posted has the people walking away from the crash.

A Mooney might be a different story. the gear is fairly stiff, they
connect right to the wing spar which is not attached to the fuselage
but goes right through it -- one piece, end to end. I think a 15 foot
pancake drop in my airplane would hurt a lot more than in a Cirrus or
a Cessna.

So you've had an engine failure or the like, you're at best endurance
glide, in a perfectly fine airplane except the fan stopped turning,
it's IMC, and that red handle is right there. If you pull it you're
probably going to inflict several hundred thousand dollars on the
airplane, if you get under the cloud deck just maybe you can
land. . .

You really want to have thought about all of that beforehand, and have
programmed yourself to pull the handle in a circumstance like that. I
am thinking the prudent pilot would say "Dammit" and deploy the
parachute.

I had best write a decision tree and do some calculations, I'm
starting to talk myself in this thing. I've got a couple of thousand
hours PIC, never had to do an off field landing (the airplane and the
pilot are both well maintained), but things do happen. . .