Ballistic parachutes with pushers

Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

"anonymous coward" wrote in message
news
Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

That does not make sense to me, how would you arrive at such a conclusion?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:14:37 +0000, Occom wrote:


"anonymous coward" wrote in message
news
Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

That does not make sense to me, how would you arrive at such a conclusion?

I was worried there might be a possibility of the parachute or its bridle
getting caught in a pusher propellor - especially during deployment.

The sort of designs I had in mind were the LongEZ or Junqua IBIS. I can
see there probably isn't any problem with most flexwing microlight designs.

AC

anonymous coward wrote...

The sort of designs I had in mind were the LongEZ or Junqua IBIS...

There are clearly slow-speed pushers with ballistic chutes, as I
think you knew based on some stuff I snipped. On a Long-Eze I'd be
more concerned about canopy/shroud strength and maximum deployment
speed rather than prop fouling. I'd bet adding a chute to a
fast cruiser where it wasn't designed in from the start would
either add a significant amount of weight in terms of additional structure
and heavy-duty chute or reduce cruise speed to something close to max
deployment speed. Or maybe just panacea or severely restricted
utility.

Dave 'strop size' Hyde

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:57 +0000, nauga wrote:

anonymous coward wrote...

The sort of designs I had in mind were the LongEZ or Junqua IBIS...

There are clearly slow-speed pushers with ballistic chutes, as I
think you knew based on some stuff I snipped. On a Long-Eze I'd be
more concerned about canopy/shroud strength and maximum deployment
speed rather than prop fouling. I'd bet adding a chute to a
fast cruiser where it wasn't designed in from the start would
either add a significant amount of weight in terms of additional structure

I'd been wondering the same. On hang-gliders the parachute is
attached to the pilot and not to the aircraft, so provided the pilot can
stand the opening shock it doesn't matter what happens to the wing - I
wonder if the answer is to attach the bridle to the pilot's seat rather
than the airframe.

AC


Dave 'strop size' Hyde

anonymous coward wrote...

I wonder if the answer is to attach the bridle to the pilot's
seat rather than the airframe.

http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/

Someone in Russia (Zvezda?) was marketing a lightweight
ejection seat for GA a while back. Dunno if they're
still around.

Dave 'back to the taxpayers' Hyde

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:36:04 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:57 +0000, nauga wrote:

anonymous coward wrote...

The sort of designs I had in mind were the LongEZ or Junqua IBIS...

There are clearly slow-speed pushers with ballistic chutes, as I
think you knew based on some stuff I snipped. On a Long-Eze I'd be
more concerned about canopy/shroud strength and maximum deployment
speed rather than prop fouling. I'd bet adding a chute to a
fast cruiser where it wasn't designed in from the start would
either add a significant amount of weight in terms of additional structure

I'd been wondering the same. On hang-gliders the parachute is
attached to the pilot and not to the aircraft, so provided the pilot can
stand the opening shock it doesn't matter what happens to the wing - I
wonder if the answer is to attach the bridle to the pilot's seat rather
than the airframe.



The Air Force and Navy do that. They call it an ejection seat. :-)


--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:14:37 GMT, "Occom"
wrote:


"anonymous coward" wrote in message
news
Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

That does not make sense to me, how would you arrive at such a conclusion?


I assume he's thinking that when you deploy the 'chute the plane will
tend to tip nose-down, risking the 'chute getting fouled in the prop.

Do I get a prize? :-)

Mike

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

news
Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

That does not make sense to me, how would you arrive at such a conclusion?


I assume he's thinking that when you deploy the 'chute the plane will
tend to tip nose-down, risking the 'chute getting fouled in the prop.

Do I get a prize? :-)

I'm not sure, I'll have to ask the quizmaster. My reasoning is mostly
visual and may be wrong, but it goes something like this...

To deploy, a parachute has to be in-line with the direction of motion of
whatever it's slowing down. As counterexamples, if you were in a 'plane
and shot a ballistic parachute forward I imagine it would get swept back
over the canopy without opening. If you shot it upwards or sideways it
wouldn't open until it was swept back behind the aircraft, because there
would only be lateral airflow with respect to the canopy.

This is assuming the aircraft is moving forwards, which I guess it may
well not be... But the problem I envisaged was dynamic rather than
static-ish. When the canopy is open and the plane descending, I guess
whether it's nose down or tail down or level just depends on the
positioning of the attachment point.

AC

In article , anonymous coward
says...

Would I be right in assuming that ballistic parachutes and pusher props
don't go?

Thanks,

AC

Actually that's a bad assumption unless you were to fire the chute thru the
prop. I would guess the majority of Ballastic chutes now in service are on
pusher type ultralight style aircraft.

See ya

Chuck S