RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

"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

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!

..

"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

"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

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?

On 2010-08-23, a wrote:
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.

snip

I was referring to having a parachute in the front; so the
plane would land on the tail, rather than nose first or flat.

Regards,
Scott

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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

My wife and I ran a disaster office for the Republic of the Marshall Islands
and she started the office while I was still employed by the US Army at
Kwajalein. When my retirement came thru, only 2 weeks after my wife opened
the disaster office, I came down and was introduced by the Chief Secretary
of the Republic to the President of the Marshall Islands as: "Mr. Kathy
Fields".

Still tickles me...