Introduction: Hello everyone.

Tater Schuld wrote:

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...

I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.


instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of ballistic
chutes?


That makes too much sense ;-) Unfortunately, I don't know any of them
and you guys are readily available. I suspect that if I approached one
of the ballistic chute companys about this they would give me that
"you must be joking, right" look and tell me that ballistic chutes for
pushers is too thin of a market for them to go after.

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:50:54 GMT, Don W
wrote:



I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.

Don W.

It's already been done; ejection seat!

Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. g

Remember to carry a camera to prove you were not flying the plane when
it hit the school.

You might get enough for that smoking hole in the ground photo to buy
another plane.

Don W.

"Don W" wrote in message . com...

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:50:54 GMT, Don W
wrote:



I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.

Don W.

It's already been done; ejection seat!

Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. g

Remember to carry a camera to prove you were not flying the plane when
it hit the school.

You might get enough for that smoking hole in the ground photo to buy
another plane.

Don W.


Do an escape pod ala F-111; why stop at the engine, jettison the whole plane!

"Don W" wrote

I've no doubt that you can stop the prop. I'd still be concerned with
some part of the chute getting wrapped around one or more prop blades
causing a tangle or other malfunction. As I think about it, I wonder
how Cirrus makes sure that they don't tangle in the vert or horz stabs.
Its kind of the same problem.

I think that the chute being blown out (along with the forward motion of the
plane) would keep the chute under tension, which would at first be back and
a little up, then as the forward speed drops, almost straight up.

If that was true, you worry about the prop would be a non-issue, as long as
you get the prop stopped.

Of course, a side benefit to ejecting the engine is that you just got
rid of 400-500 lbs which would otherwise be sitting behind the back
passengers when you hit the ground.

Also a non issue, I believe. The motion is almost staight down, while
descending under the chute. The only thing to suffer at impact would be the
ground underneath the plane. g
--
Jim in NC

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Don W" wrote in message
t...

Don...........

I forgot one of the biggest groups - the bottom feede. . . er . . .
posters.
Don't **** them off. they eat top posters like a Pratt & Whitney eats
hi-test. It looks as if you may be a top poster, hence this warning.
Govern
yourself accordianly.

Rich S.


Indeed, a really big no-no!!!!

The P&W sips daintily by comparison. ;-)
Peter

----------snip-----------
Always wondered if a plane might could still be flown under minimal power
while "on the chute". But it would probably collapse a round parachute...

Richard

Someone did that in a Cirrus. I believe that he powered away from a built
up area and landed in the water. My further recollection is that some
injuries occurred because the water landing prevented the undercarriage from
absorbing the energy of the "landing"--like landing a parachute in a nearly
seated position. :-(

Peter

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of
ballistic
chutes?

But that might be expensive!
--
Jim in NC


ooooooooooooo (scapes finger)

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...


Tater Schuld wrote:

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...

I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.


instead of asking us, wouldn't it be wiser to ask the makers of
ballistic
chutes?


That makes too much sense ;-) Unfortunately, I don't know any of them
and you guys are readily available. I suspect that if I approached one
of the ballistic chute companys about this they would give me that
"you must be joking, right" look and tell me that ballistic chutes for
pushers is too thin of a market for them to go after.


Balistic Recovery Systems is the only one that I can recall, and they make
them for a wide variety of aircraft and "ultralight vehicles". Their web
address is http://brsparachutes.com/

Personally, I am NOT an advocate of the concept. I would prefer that the
parachute be attached to ME, and NOT to @##$%& airplane. FIRE is the reason
that comes most immediately to mind, but I suppose that I could think of
more with a little effort.

However, YMMV

Peter

..Blueskies. wrote:

I'd really like to build something like a pressurized turboVelocity with
the VNE pushed up to 250kts. I'd also like it to have a built in
ballistic chute system which jettisons the engine (to its own chute)
before deployment.

Don W.

It's already been done; ejection seat!


Well, I was originally thinking along those lines, but since I could
probably only afford one hot seat, the thought of the look of horror
on my passengers faces after the pilot ejected changed my mind. g

Do an escape pod ala F-111; why stop at the engine, jettison the whole plane!

I thought of that as well. It sure would get rid of a lot of weight,
and you just put all the left over avgas away from you too. I don't
think I'm smart enough to figure out the structure for the airplane+
escape pod though sigh. Also, did you notice that I figured out how
to ditch the TIO-540 without using any pyrotechnics? I have a feeling
that getting the pod off wouldn't be quite as simple. It sure would
allow for a smaller chute though.

Don W.

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...

You wouldn't need a brake to get a fully feathering prop to stop. Even
with the propeller stopped it seems that getting the chute to deploy
without snagging risers on the prop would be problematic

Don............

I see you did not pick up on my suggestion, so I'll take it one step
further.

If the *prop* is the problem, jettison the _________. (Fill in the blank)

Rich "Engines are expensive, too." S.