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

Parachute anyone?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 13th 04, 04:21 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Parachute anyone?

Howdy All,

What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either personal
or ballistic for the whole airplane?

While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap insurance.

All thoughts and ideas welcome,

tom pettit
Ads
  #2  
Old January 13th 04, 04:57 AM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually, I hate USING parachutes, WEARING one is a good idea.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message ...
Howdy All,

What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either

personal
or ballistic for the whole airplane?

While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap

insurance.

All thoughts and ideas welcome,

tom pettit


  #3  
Old January 13th 04, 05:24 AM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

Actually, I hate USING parachutes, WEARING one is a good idea.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message ...
Howdy All,

What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either

personal
or ballistic for the whole airplane?

While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap

insurance.

All thoughts and ideas welcome,

tom pettit



I am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.

Even for a 2-place homebuilt, a ballistic parachute has a limited value.

It will eat 50-75 lbs of your useful load;

it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
every 5 years or so;

it is expensive to buy($5000-$10000);

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)
  #4  
Old January 13th 04, 11:42 AM
RU ok
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please state the details of the lives lost.

A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.


Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....

"Hello RV owners,
Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
over the years, we've currently entered into the design
phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
also open to any questions or comments that you may have
regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."


Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...

Message: #117851
Date: Dec 26, 2003
Subject: Chutes for RVs

"In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.


Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491


You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
http://www.matronics.com/search


Barnyard BOb --

  #5  
Old January 13th 04, 02:10 PM
sean trost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob,
I think that Orval is talking about flares not the ballistic portion of
the BRS. As I read it he does not claim that a BRS has cost any lives.

Good Morning !
Sean

RU ok wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:


The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please state the details of the lives lost.

A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.


Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....

"Hello RV owners,
Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
over the years, we've currently entered into the design
phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
also open to any questions or comments that you may have
regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."


Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...

Message: #117851
Date: Dec 26, 2003
Subject: Chutes for RVs

"In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.


Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491


You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
http://www.matronics.com/search


Barnyard BOb --


  #6  
Old January 13th 04, 04:52 PM
D. Grunloh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Orval Fairbairn wrote:

II am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.


They are justified in any case where they may be effective
(even if structures are not substandard). Hang gliders use them
all the time, as do the parapente. It's not only for structural failure
or engine trouble.


it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
every 5 years or so;


I believe they are now talking about 12 years on the rocket.

Maintenance is high at about $600 for a repack for the smaller ones
every six years. Annual or semi-annual repacks for the soft pack
with shipping will cost about the same overall.

Total cost for a UL version is $3 per hour of flying time if you fly
100 hours per year and keep it 12 years.

--Dan Grunloh (half way there)


  #7  
Old January 13th 04, 07:26 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
RU ok wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please state the details of the lives lost.


I didn't blame parachutes for lives lost. The incicent involved two
pilots at the University of Illinois about 1958 or '59, where they fired
a parachute flare out the window of a Cessna 140, practicing night
emergencies. The flare hung up on the wing strut. They crashed and were
killed.




A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.


Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....

"Hello RV owners,
Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
over the years, we've currently entered into the design
phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
also open to any questions or comments that you may have
regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."


Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...

Message: #117851
Date: Dec 26, 2003
Subject: Chutes for RVs

"In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.



I actually witnessed one of the saves -- it was at the Salinas (CA)
airshow, where an ultralight was demonstrating steep maneuvers. The
outboard wing structure broke and the pilot deployed the chute, lowering
all to the ground.



Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491


You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
http://www.matronics.com/search


Barnyard BOb --


Mr. Peltier makes no mention of payload penalties or deployment
airspeeds beyond which either the parachute will shred or tear itself
away from the structure.

I still see no justification for a BRS on a regular airplane. It is far
easier, cheaper and lighter to beef up critical parts of the structure
than to install a BRS, with its pyrotechnic maintenance requirements
thrown in.
  #8  
Old January 14th 04, 04:28 AM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.

Even for a 2-place homebuilt, a ballistic parachute has a limited value.

It will eat 50-75 lbs of your useful load;


I don't believe so. I recently had a BRS-5 750 UL on a Maxair Drifter
XP503 2 place experimental. The weight of the 'chute was right around
23 lbs

it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
every 5 years or so;


Currently for BRS the rockets are good for 12 years and the 'chute
needs to be repacked every six years. Also, with the newer models you
remove the rocket from the 'chute to ease shipping when sending the
canister back for repack.

it is expensive to buy($5000-$10000);


Current pricing for my model is $2,195.00. The Cessna 172 model will
run you almost 16K.

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)


I flew with one for over 4 years in my Drifter. Luckily I never needed
(or even came close) to use it. It was just another bit of insurance.

For more information on BRS 'chutes: http://brsparachutes.com/

FWIW

Mark

  #9  
Old January 16th 04, 06:39 PM
Gilan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

very simple! If you have a chute you may have more of a chance. If you
don't have a chute you are on your own. The new BRS have 6 year repack
times and 12 years on the rocket life.

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/



  #10  
Old January 18th 04, 07:41 AM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?

I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?
Maybe for hard IMC? If you feel that threatened about what you are about to
do, maybe you shouldn't do it!

Seriously, a Cirrus is meant to be flown as a traveling machine that may see
a lot of Hard IFR. Also, the stall characteristics are rumored to be
quirky, so I see the plus of the chute there. Some homebuilts are
incredibly lightly built which increases the likely need, as well as the
ability to land softly under the canopy.

Van's are solid machines, and are not that light.

IMnotsoHO the main value of a chute is the reassurance that it seems to give
non pilots.

OUT


"RU ok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please state the details of the lives lost.

A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.


Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....

"Hello RV owners,
Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
over the years, we've currently entered into the design
phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
also open to any questions or comments that you may have
regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."


Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...

Message: #117851
Date: Dec 26, 2003
Subject: Chutes for RVs

"In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.


Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491


You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
http://www.matronics.com/search


Barnyard BOb --



 




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
Emergency Parachute questions Jay Moreland Aerobatics 14 December 3rd 04 06:46 PM
FA: Emergency Parachute JC Cunningham Aerobatics 0 June 11th 04 09:45 PM
FS, Emergency parachute JC Aerobatics 0 March 22nd 04 10:51 PM
FS: Pilot Parachute Rig Splat! Home Built 0 December 5th 03 09:05 AM
FS: SECURITY 150 PARACHUTE PACK W/O CANOPY Tim Hanke Home Built 0 July 21st 03 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.