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
  #31  
Old August 20th 10, 12:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Brian Whatcott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 915
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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


On 8/19/2010 10:09 PM, a wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:56 pm, 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


  #32  
Old August 20th 10, 02:37 PM 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


Jim, a 15 foot fall -- think of falling from the roof of a two story
building -- does real damage, but in the case of a rescue parachute
you're in a metal cage. Level impact in something like a 182 has the
fixed gear that have a lot of flex -- a few inches of spring yield
would reduce the G forces a lot, and the history shown in one of the
urls I posted has the people walking away from the crash.

A Mooney might be a different story. the gear is fairly stiff, they
connect right to the wing spar which is not attached to the fuselage
but goes right through it -- one piece, end to end. I think a 15 foot
pancake drop in my airplane would hurt a lot more than in a Cirrus or
a Cessna.

So you've had an engine failure or the like, you're at best endurance
glide, in a perfectly fine airplane except the fan stopped turning,
it's IMC, and that red handle is right there. If you pull it you're
probably going to inflict several hundred thousand dollars on the
airplane, if you get under the cloud deck just maybe you can
land. . .

You really want to have thought about all of that beforehand, and have
programmed yourself to pull the handle in a circumstance like that. I
am thinking the prudent pilot would say "Dammit" and deploy the
parachute.

I had best write a decision tree and do some calculations, I'm
starting to talk myself in this thing. I've got a couple of thousand
hours PIC, never had to do an off field landing (the airplane and the
pilot are both well maintained), but things do happen. . .



  #33  
Old August 20th 10, 05:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Gemini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

On 2010-08-20, brian whatcott 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
  #34  
Old August 20th 10, 10:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing


"brian whatcott" wrote in message
...
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.


If there was a nearly upright sitting position, it would be good back
support, but...
If the design had a regular nose mounted engine, that would mean a sudden
stop could allow the engine to keep going and end up on your lap.
--
Jim in NC


  #35  
Old August 21st 10, 01:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Brian Whatcott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 915
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

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
  #36  
Old August 22nd 10, 01:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Garry O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing


"Flaps_50!" wrote in message
...
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


One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
what a crock!!
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"

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ"

  #37  
Old August 22nd 10, 02:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
John Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

Morgans wrote:
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.


The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.

I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
story.
  #38  
Old August 22nd 10, 04:25 PM 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 22, 9:56*am, John Smith wrote:
Morgans wrote:
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.


The chute must be stored somewhere, and its lines have to be attached to
the plane in a way which doesn't endanger the occupants when the cute
gets deployed. By far the easiest way to do this is to store it in the
aft fuselage and to attach the lines behind the cockpit. Which happens
to reslt in a nose down attitude when the plane hangs on the chute.

I'm sure there are other ways, but they come at a price, moneywise and
weightwise, both not desirable in a RANS-9. A Cirrus may be a different
story.


The aftermarket instillation of a Cirrus like rescue parachute in
Cessnas most often has the canister in the luggage compartment, and
it appears the harness attaching it to the firewall and aft on the
airplane are under a fiberglass fairing that gives way when the
parachute is deployed. The airplanes are intended to come down more or
less flat.

In a significant number of cases (the statistics are cited in
references elsewhere in this thread) the airplane was not totaled
after being brought down under the parachute.
  #39  
Old August 22nd 10, 10:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing


"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


  #40  
Old August 22nd 10, 11:54 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:
"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.



We don't really KNOW how it was rigged, only how it came down.
As much roll as was present, it could well be that part of the
harness got wrapped around the tailwheel or something...



--

Richard Lamb


 




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 02:55 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.