Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dave Houlton wrote:
This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.

Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Some of the Russia AC-4 gliders in the US are equipped with them, and
the SparrowHawk has it available as a $2200 option. At least one
SparrowHawk has it installed. Neither the Russia nor the SparrowHawk
people have tested the BRS in a glider yet.

From reading the saves on
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi

I'd say glider construction is so well done compared to
some ultralights that we are unlikely to see a glider
use for some time...

Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole

In article ,
GMC wrote:

Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole

Greg Cole!

bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :-

Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk .


But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems? And how did the
weight and balance work out? Is it true you get a
weight increase on the "ultralight" definition from using a
BRS? Older FAA docs seemed to indicate this weight
increase was only for "powered" ultralights. Is the
weight increase 24 pounds, or what?

Great stuff. I hope you sell two dozen more Sparrowhawks
this year. I can't wait to touch one in person...

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole


Greg Cole!

bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :-

Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk .

But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems?

While it would be more satisfying to get answers from Greg, he doesn't
routinely monitor the group, so I will attempt some answers.

I don't know the diameter of the system currently used, but diameter
doesn't seem to important to the pilot!

And how did the
weight and balance work out?

CG is not a problem, as it is mounted very close to the CG. It does
reduce the allowed cockpit weight by the weight of the BRS system (about
30 pounds in the one I flew). The pilot could elect to fly without a
personal parachute, making the net loss in cockpit payload about 20 pounds.

Is it true you get a
weight increase on the "ultralight" definition from using a
BRS?

Yes, I'm told the FAA doesn't count a BRS system in the "empty weight".

Older FAA docs seemed to indicate this weight
increase was only for "powered" ultralights. Is the
weight increase 24 pounds, or what?

The one I flew was about 30 pounds, due to using the "high speed" chute,
rather than the lower speed chutes an ultralight would typically use.

A prospective purchaser should not take my remarks as definitive, but
should contact Windward Performance for the latest figures. I do talk to
Greg from time to time, most recently at the Convention, but I don't
follow the details closely.

Great stuff. I hope you sell two dozen more Sparrowhawks
this year. I can't wait to touch one in person...

You ought to come to the SparrowHawk Flyin, starting May 15, where you
can touch at least 5 (with more likely) of them! Bring your glider and
do some soaring in Eastern Oregon. Check their website for details.
Besides seeing the SparrowHawks, I think you'd enjoy seeing how they are
constructed, along the impressive array of molds and fixtures.

I'll be there with my glider to join the festivities and attempt some
state motorglider records (and maybe some records in a SparrowHawk, if I
can persuade an owner to get out his long enough).

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

The group demonstrates the spectrum of opinions on this subject from
"Not me, brother," to "Anyone opposed should be held criminally
liable."

Gerhard Waibel said it best (paraphrase): "If I can get the parachute
off the pilot's back, I have the space I need to build a cockpit that
will protect him."

In the under 2000 ft agl realm, a rocket deployed chute is very, very
desirable. Or if the pilot is incapacitated as a result of collision.
Or if the pilot is physically unable to exit the aircraft due to
infirmity or high g loading. Or if the pilot would prefer to stay with
his significantly more visible glider and its reliable ELT.

Control is also very desirble. In mountainess terrain, it might be
better to have a square on your back. Nice to have options. Including
deploying your recovery system, then taking your time to decide if and
how to evacuate the cockpit.

Schempp Hirth has put BRSs in several gliders during the past year. My
order was a little too early, or I'd have had one myself.

At 16:18 11 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
snip...

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...

It would remove the temptation to stay with the glider
and try to save it. You pull the bung and float down
on the BRS, rather than descend from 3000', have the
tailplane part company with the fin at 1000' and bunt
straight into the ground. And, before Mark claims that
scenario is far fetched, it has already happened with
fatal consequences.

I would have a BRS if it was possible to retrofit one
to my glider at a sensible price.

snip...

Just wondering...

Do Americans wear parachutes whilst flying in competitions?
I went to fly at one of the big clubs in the states,
no-one wore any chutes but there were some availiable.
so we wore them.

In article ,
Ian MacArthur wrote:
Just wondering...

Do Americans wear parachutes whilst flying in competitions?

I believe the chutes aren't just worn in competitions
(regional and national), but they are required for sanction
of the contest.

Is this true? I don't have references...

just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

On 12 Feb 2004 08:10:23 GMT, Pete Zeugma
wrote:

just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

Once. In an ASK-23 at the Wasserkuppe: I believe a 5 m static line is
mandated for German club gliders. Before you ask, I did remember to
take the chute off before walking away from the cockpit.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :