If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
I have a rocket deployed ballistic recovery chute for sale on ebay. It
is a Second Chantz model Aerosafe 550. One or two dents in the case but that should not affect it's functionality. It is used... but never used. It should be re-packed by a parachute rigger before being mounted on an aircraft. Starting bid $100, no reserve and no fake bidding BS. Buyer to pay your own choice of shipping and insurance. With a little bit of care and a repack, you can save hundreds or even thousands compared to a new BRS unit. I do NOT check this e-mail ever, so if you have questions contact me via the ebay auction messaging. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO
factory support. Buyer beware....Would you trust your life to such a big unknown? My life is worth purchasing and up-to-date emergency parachute system. At our school, we "test fire" old rocket systems. Sometimes (usually the older units are more pronounced) the "result" is not encouraging. Save your life-don't buy obsolete life support systems! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
Hi Group
I have a Chinook wt 11. It was weecked & had a nondeployed 2nd chantz Chute on it. It is in grate condition, but was instaled in 1983. So I called sevral co that packed chutes. No one would touch it. I even called BSR. Now this is what I found out.These chutes have a life span of 8 yr for safty. I was told they might be good up to twevle yr, but that is pushing it. Repacking is done only on the orignal manfucture of the chute. One co. will not touch another chute. I was told that my chute had a cnance of less than 50/50 of working & that was only if water nad not leaked in some how. So nevadaflyer is right in his post. Paul J. Lewis "Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news In article .com, wrote: Warning, these Second Chantz units are ALL out of date and there is NO factory support. Buyer beware....Would you trust your life to such a big unknown? My life is worth purchasing and up-to-date emergency parachute system. At our school, we "test fire" old rocket systems. Sometimes (usually the older units are more pronounced) the "result" is not encouraging. Save your life-don't buy obsolete life support systems! That raises the questions: How reliable are the others out there? Is a plane chute an asset or a liability? How safe are the rockets as they age? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
In article wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21, RAM says...
This is an interesting thread. First, we're talking about about one "system", but several components. For historical purposes, the US Army conducted tests on parachutes that had been packed for up to 20 years and found that there was NO degradation in the reliability and function of a parachute IF IT HAD BEEN PROPERLY STORED. This means in clean and dry conditions. If your canopy did not contain any "mesh" products (which have been a problem in subsequent canopies) it should function as well as when it was new if properly cared for. About 4 years ago at the Hawk Owners Fly in we fired 2 very old chute systems.One was a Second chance that we had hanging around the shop for about15 years and a customer had a 1983 Hawk with a 1983 BRS ballistic unit . Both fired on the first try and sent the chutes out to the end of the bridles amid a cloud of what appeared to be talcum powder. Both chutes were in good shape as far as we could tell .There was no dry rot but I don't know if the material had deteriorated or not.We couldn't tear either one.The BRS guy sent it in for a rebuild and the Second Chantz that I had is now used by my grand kids for a windy weather toy. Just some observations.But I would follow the manufacturers recomendations. See ya Chuck S -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
"RAM" wrote in message news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21... It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it), I'd rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!! There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is bomb. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... "RAM" wrote in message news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21... It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it), I'd rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!! There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is bomb. That's a valid point, although I've never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated. I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned oxide which forms resulting in a misfire. Still, given a choice (and still assuming I needed it) I'd risk a "misfire" or even a burst case over the alternative. As was mentioned early on in this thread, the BEST option is an airworthy system (in date and properly maintained). Rick |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
On 04/18/06 15:11, RAM wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... "RAM" wrote in message news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21... It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it), I'd rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!! There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is bomb. That's a valid point, although I've never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated. I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned oxide which forms resulting in a misfire. Still, given a choice (and still assuming I needed it) I'd risk a "misfire" or even a burst case over the alternative. As was mentioned early on in this thread, the BEST option is an airworthy system (in date and properly maintained). Rick I'm not sure the decision is between having (possibly a bad) one versus having nothing at all. Assuming you need one (some day), do you want to pay the money to be (relatively) sure it will work, or save some money and have it (possibly) not work. You can argue that even if you pay for a current system, it may still not work, but I think we can agree that the odds are a lot better that it will. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
Mmmmm.., I think I'd stick with RAM on this one gang.., the rest of the
answers just take the fun out of flying UL's.. (smile)..!! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
Chuck,
Ya just can't beat the manufacturer's recommendations! It is interesting to hear about the old systems working though, and I was especially surprised (and happy) to hear that 20 year old rockets still functioned well! Most canopies manufactured since the 50's have been constructed of a calendered Nylon derivative with F-111 being a popular material for parachute construction. These materials are impervious to dry rot and are primarily damage by chemical contamination and UV radiation. If there are no natural fibers used in the construction of the system it will last a long time. I still have serviceable skydiving canopies manufactured in the 60's! Thanks for the data Chuck. Rick "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message ... In article wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21, RAM says... This is an interesting thread. First, we're talking about about one "system", but several components. For historical purposes, the US Army conducted tests on parachutes that had been packed for up to 20 years and found that there was NO degradation in the reliability and function of a parachute IF IT HAD BEEN PROPERLY STORED. This means in clean and dry conditions. If your canopy did not contain any "mesh" products (which have been a problem in subsequent canopies) it should function as well as when it was new if properly cared for. About 4 years ago at the Hawk Owners Fly in we fired 2 very old chute systems.One was a Second chance that we had hanging around the shop for about15 years and a customer had a 1983 Hawk with a 1983 BRS ballistic unit . Both fired on the first try and sent the chutes out to the end of the bridles amid a cloud of what appeared to be talcum powder. Both chutes were in good shape as far as we could tell .There was no dry rot but I don't know if the material had deteriorated or not.We couldn't tear either one.The BRS guy sent it in for a rebuild and the Second Chantz that I had is now used by my grand kids for a windy weather toy. Just some observations.But I would follow the manufacturers recomendations. See ya Chuck S -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA and Diversity | DILLIGAF | Piloting | 12 | February 18th 06 05:41 PM |
IF I HAD A ROCKET LAUNCHER | X98 | Military Aviation | 7 | August 13th 04 09:17 PM |
spaceship one | Pianome | Home Built | 169 | June 30th 04 05:47 AM |
Ballistic chute saves 4 souls | Bob Babcock | Home Built | 28 | April 27th 04 09:29 PM |
Rocket Launching of Gliders | Jim Culp | Soaring | 0 | September 7th 03 06:52 PM |