(SteveM8597) wrote in message ...
As far as making an airliner recoverable you would have to decide if
the several tons of system to do this would not be better spent in
other areas.

The particular car I drive has the best breakdown record of any car
mainly because of its oversized battery.

The military might find such technology more usefull.

Ballistic recovery systems have had
successes on light planes and ultralights Otherwise, I have told him
that the
above have been proven to be impractical and even dangerous.

What is impracticable about them in larger vehicles. Be precise.

You pretty much hit the nail on the weight and safety; and of course cost,
unless madated. Commerical operators will spring for a 3000# entertainment
sustem for an airliner but not a 200# system that guards against electrical
shorts such as the one that brought TWA 800 down accoring to a recent
documentary on US TV. Also the overall cost has to be hustified in terms of
potential lives saved. The airlines use $2.6 million as a figure to calculate
cost vs benefit according to tht same documentary..


The BRS recovery chute is probably lighter than giving each passenger
an ejection seat. It is infinetly more practical than expecting
people in what is essentially a pleasure craft to strap into ejection
seats etc.

As aircraft weight (and speed?) goes up egress by ejection seat
becomes more attractive because 'whole of aircraft'

Where I would see some value to 'whole of aircraft' recovery is in the
area of smaller troop transports and combat troop helicopters where
the aircraft opperates so close to the ground.

Perhaps aircraft as large as a Bombadier Dash 8 or Buffalo/Carribu
would handle a recovery chute. Apart from the safety aspects it might
in combination with a RATO system form the basis of a special missions
aircraft.