A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 19th 10, 09:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing


"Oliver Arend" wrote

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. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).


Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

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


  #22  
Old August 19th 10, 11:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

On Aug 19, 3:40*am, Oliver Arend wrote:
I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European
ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all
our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had
several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute.

Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system.
Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are
very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the
engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency
landing, like over water, forest or swamp.

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. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace
the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage.

Oliver


I was interested in seeing if there was any factual information about
damages immediately available on the use of recovery parachutes,
here's the URL from manufacturer with some interesting statistics, the
most telling of which is that those Cessna pilots listed here who
deployed their chutes .walked away from airplanes that in most cases
suffered serious damage but would fly again.


http://brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx


Looking a little more, here's something Cirrus specific. Notice the
number of accidents where the PIC was instrument rated.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nsLearned.aspx

One last bit. . .

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx

Probably 40% of my SEL PIC time is either or both night/IMC, and this
information at least suggests the probable cost and risk of deploying
a recovery chute if there's going to be a forced off field landing is
less than attempting to find a suitable place to put the bird down
safely. It's clear the chances of a no-damage landing are better if
one flies and lands the airplane, but so are the chances of post
landing fire or a non survivable crash.

The guys who really study this stuff are the insurers, be interesting
to see if liability rates and the like start showing lower rates for
those who fly airplanes with recovery chutes. I doubt there's a large
enough data base accurate statistics, but the universe of owner pilots
is an attractive one for insurers (the underlying assumption being
that group is self selecting as well above average in income).

Decisions, decisions.

  #23  
Old August 19th 10, 03:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
rich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?
  #24  
Old August 19th 10, 04:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Flaps_50!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

On Aug 19, 5:35*am, "vaughn" wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message

...

I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.


The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.


My knowledge of human factors suggest that this would be the case for
some high risk pilots but not all.

Cheers

  #25  
Old August 19th 10, 04:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Flaps_50!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

On Aug 19, 8:05*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote

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. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).


Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. *Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

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


When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper
cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some
(?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is
equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact
will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off.
So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes
structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is
moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be
the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced
landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea
compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good
device to have as an option but also has some negative features and
needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine
fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in
the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin
penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or
crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point.

Cheers
  #26  
Old August 19th 10, 04:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
cavelamb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

Morgans wrote:
"Oliver Arend" wrote

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. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).


Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and
the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying
that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it
always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and
come down nose first?

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



An engine fire in this particular accident would have been a bummer...

--

Richard Lamb


  #27  
Old August 19th 10, 05:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavelamb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

rich wrote:
That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?



Notice that the wing came off intact.

Looks like the struts folded in compression.

Also note the very narrow angle, since the struts go to the bottom
of the fuselage (on a mid wing).

I'd sure like to be able to inspect the remains...


--

Richard Lamb


  #28  
Old August 20th 10, 03:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default 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


  #29  
Old August 20th 10, 04:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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
  #30  
Old August 20th 10, 07:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Tom De Moor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

In article , rich54
@rocketmail.com says...

That Rans looks like a piece of crap. Of all the acrobatic planes out
there to choose from, why anyone would choose that model for that
purpose is beyond me. Is it cheap? is that why it's popular?




http://www.rans.com/s9spec.html

Around 10 kUS$ for an airframe seems not overly expensif.
189 flying.

As to looks and colors...

Tom De Moor



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAA falling further into chaos TheTruth[_2_] Piloting 2 March 12th 08 07:05 AM
Batavia Air 737 loses wing segment in flight BernieFlyer[_2_] Piloting 2 November 25th 07 11:05 AM
FAA Chaos MyCoxaFallen Piloting 12 June 6th 05 04:54 PM
DC Chaos, 9/11 and other assorted FAA diasters MyCoxaFallen Instrument Flight Rules 0 June 2nd 05 06:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.