Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:38 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG))
2. 03:09 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
3. 03:39 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
4. 06:24 AM - battery ()
5. 07:10 AM - Re: battery (Jerry Springer)
6. 07:50 AM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (Dave Bristol)
7. 07:56 AM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (RV_8 Pilot)
8. 08:17 AM - Chutes for RVs...Captain going down with the ship...;) (michael michael)
9. 08:36 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Michael D Hilger)
10. 08:38 AM - Re: Riveting wing leading edge ribs...anyone use pop rivets? (Curt Hoffman)
11. 08:59 AM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs - getting out (thomas a. sargent)
12. 09:01 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Shemp)
13. 09:48 AM - Re: battery ()
14. 10:07 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jerry Springer)
15. 10:19 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
16. 10:39 AM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (Jeff Peltier)
17. 10:58 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
18. 11:00 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
19. 12:07 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
20. 12:11 PM - Re: BRS (Jeff Peltier)
21. 12:48 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jerry Springer)
22. 12:50 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (DANIEL W WATTERS)
23. 12:50 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (GMC)
24. 01:36 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG))
25. 02:07 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Shemp)
26. 02:28 PM - Re: battery (Ed Perry)
27. 02:35 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
28. 03:08 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
29. 03:11 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier)
30. 04:06 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (178 seconds to live) (Jerry Springer)
31. 04:35 PM - Inboard flap rib (Ken Simmons)
32. 04:55 PM - Alternator Belt-Please Help (JNice51355@aol.com)
33. 05:45 PM - SL30 Flag Test (Larry Bowen)
34. 10:33 PM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (Blanton Fortson)
35. 10:49 PM - Re: Ballistic parachutes (Blanton Fortson)
36. 10:59 PM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (Jerry Springer)
37. 10:59 PM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (Blanton Fortson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz>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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less than
>before. You use scare tactics and untruths
>to try to justify your chute on an RV. Using an example of a young
>eagle, (scare tactic) saying you have to be a tiny
>person to exit an RV-6. (untrue) I am 6'3" 210 lb. and would not have a
>problem getting out. Yes I have jumped out of
>airplanes before still do not see a need for ballistics in an RV. BRS
>were originally designed for ultralights that were having
>structural failures in the early stages. I believe that is still the
>best use of ballistic chutes after reading your saves and all the
> malfunctions on the airplanes they are installed on.
>BTW tell us what Van thinks of using ballistic chutes on his design? You
>say it is not an excuse for poor building
>practices, well I doubt very much that anyone is going to build their
>airplane poorly and say to him/herself I well just use a
>a BRS. So I guess I am still waiting for the myths you are going to
>dispel. By your 2 cent comment seems like you
>are not happy with the comments that don't agree with yours. BTW I
>noticed in your saves list only one Cirrus
>listed wasn't there another one where the chute did not deploy
>correctly? March 2002 I believe.
>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel best
>for them.
>Jerry
>
Jerry,
I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my two
cents worth.
1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE. The
report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the fall of
the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even hit the
ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs. Other
Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching over
water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute since my
luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush hour
traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in 30 knot
winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent the
occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the standard pan
used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of TEMP-R-FOAM
or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might swim to
shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of gliding
distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what kind of
superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
3. YMMV
P.S.
Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his death was
caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces of the
aircraft.he was piloting.
Bob
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>Jerry,
>
>I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my two
>cents worth.
>
>1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE. The
>report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the fall of
>the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even hit the
>ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs. Other
>Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
>
>2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching over
>water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute since my
>luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush hour
>traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in 30 knot
>winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent the
>occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the standard pan
>used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of TEMP-R-FOAM
>or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might swim to
>shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of gliding
>distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what kind of
>superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
>
>3. YMMV
>
>P.S.
>Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his death was
>caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces of the
>aircraft.he was piloting.
>
I forgot to add --
The above only applies if, BIG IF....
if the ballistic chute can be made to deploy properly and repeatedly in
the first place. This is hardly a 'given' at this point and I'd hate to
assume anything that would jeopardize my next 50 years of successful
flight. :-)
Bob - over 50 years of successful flight
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
Based upon note I have seen here, I recently bought an Odessey 580 battery for
my RV8A, with an IO-360 (200HP) Lyc. The batt is much thinner than the old G-25.
So thin that I wonder if it has enough capacity to handle this engine??
What are your experiences with it??
Thanks.
Jimmy Hill
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Don't know about a 580, but I know the 680 spins my O-360 much better
than the Concorde RGB I had before.
Jerry
jimmy@jhill.biz wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
>
>Based upon note I have seen here, I recently bought an Odessey 580 battery for
my RV8A, with an IO-360 (200HP) Lyc. The batt is much thinner than the old
G-25.
>
>
>So thin that I wonder if it has enough capacity to handle this engine??
>What are your experiences with it??
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jimmy Hill
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Their website claims 138 mph for the GARD-50 which is the 1,645 lb. model.
Dave
do not archive
j1j2h3@juno.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
>Just my $.02 worth.
>
>Re the weight and cost issue - I think MOST people agree that it's a
>good idea to wear chutes for aerobatics. Okay - what is the cost and
>weight of 2 chutes vs. 1 BRS? Also, I haven't seen a definitive answer
>as to whether its even possible to open an RV canopy at anything above 80 mph.
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Re. opening a canopy in flight.
I feel very confident saying I could easily get a canopy open in almost all
cases with two of the RV configurations (that would be the slider and tip
over). But, *getting out* of a spinning, damaged airplane is another story
entirely. But it would also be very questionable for an integral parachute
system (BRS) to successfully deply from a spinning, broken airplane.
Probably slightly better odds than a person getting out. But the systems
are still too expensive, too heavy, too intrusive and too performance
limited for me to seriously consider.
Bryan Jones -8, 575 hrs
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
Houston, Texas
do not archive
>weight of 2 chutes vs. 1 BRS? Also, I haven't seen a definitive answer
>as to whether its even possible to open an RV canopy at anything above 80
>mph.
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Chutes for RVs...Captain going down with the ship...;) |
--> RV-List message posted by: michael michael <top_gun_toronto@yahoo.ca>
Dear Pilots...
There was once a time that parachutes were not given out to pilots, because it
was seen as promoting cowardice,....
I think the jury is out...I do think that we will all watch the 1st RV planes equipped
with this device very carefully(wether you like the idea or not, your
interest is peaked)..... But I can tell you one thing... If the BRS does work.....If
it saves the life of one sorry ass pilot then the debate was worth it.....There
has never been a time when a revolutionary idea was not met with resistance(regarless
if you like the messenger or not)..... I feel there is allot
of the "Captain going down with the ship"...mentality floating around. ....
One of 2 things are going to happen.....This system will begin to save lives.....or
it wont.....I beg the question...why not see if it does save lives ....the
benefits far outweigh the loss.....I say to the dis believers....hold your tongue.....you
can always do the "I told you so" later & show us all, how enlighten
you are....but until then...lets let this play out.....give them enough rope.....lets
see what happens.....This has me riveted....we could be at a major
junction in aviation...This could be one of those....I remember when stories,
unfolding before your eyes..
Michael In Toronto
---------------------------------
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael D Hilger <rvsixer@juno.com>
> Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel
> best
> for them.
> Jerry
Jerry,
How about if you and Bob U both take a pill and let those who are
interested
BE interested...
Mike Hilger
RV-6 N207AM 500 hrs
Do Not Archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Riveting wing leading edge ribs...anyone use pop rivets? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Hoffman" <choffman9@cinci.rr.com>
Good idea. I have done something similar by accidently kneeling on a rivet
and leaving an impression in my knee : )
Curt Hoffman
RV-9A wings done for now- working on tail
Quick build fuselage now in basement
Piper Cherokee N5320W
1974 TR6
HD Road King Classic
(Maybe I need a boat too)
----- Original Message -----
From: <LeastDrag93066@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Riveting wing leading edge ribs...anyone use pop
rivets?
> --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2003 4:26:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> choffman9@cinci.rr.com writes:
> I used
> a small mirror on a stem to check the shop heads but we could pretty much
> tell how they were by feel.
> Braille rivet inspection.
>
> If you press on the formed head with your finger, it will leave an
impression
> of the formed rivet head on your finger, briefly. You can then "see" the
> formed rivet head without needing a mirror.
>
> Jim Ayers
> RV-3
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs - getting out |
--> RV-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
Bryan:
I have often wondered about getting out in flight. I am building a
tip-up. How do you get the thing open in flight short of smashing the
plexiglass? I've always heard that neither the tip-up nor the slider
can be opened in flight because aerodynamic forces exert too much
pressure. I've built the emergency release mechanism into my plane, but
the canopy would still be held in by the gas struts. (I installed the
emergency release to make it easier to remove the canopy for
maintainance purposes.) Or can I install removable pins in the mounts
for the gas struts?
--
Tom Sargent - RV-6A
RV_8 Pilot wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
>Re. opening a canopy in flight.
>
>I feel very confident saying I could easily get a canopy open in almost all
>cases with two of the RV configurations (that would be the slider and tip
>over). But, *getting out* of a spinning, damaged airplane is another story
>entirely.
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Why dont we just build some ejection seats. We can probably find some deals
in Tucson:)
Do not archive
Jeff Dowling
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
Jerry:
Thanks. I was mistaken; what I have is the 680. Guess I just need to
install it.
Jimmy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: battery
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
> Don't know about a 580, but I know the 680 spins my O-360 much better
> than the Concorde RGB I had before.
>
> Jerry
>
> jimmy@jhill.biz wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
> >
> >Based upon note I have seen here, I recently bought an Odessey 580
battery for my RV8A, with an IO-360 (200HP) Lyc. The batt is much thinner
than the old G-25.
> >
> >
> >So thin that I wonder if it has enough capacity to handle this engine??
> >What are your experiences with it??
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Jimmy Hill
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Smell the coffee man do you see me saying don't be interested? If a BRS
floats your boat go for it.
but my opinions are just as good as yours. Just walked in the door from
having breakfast with Van
and this subject was discussed at length. I do not believe most of you
are going to want to do what is
going g to be necessary to install a BRS in an RV. This well take major
airframe mods, the AIRFRAME and SEATS
etc. well have to be designed around the BRS. As I said before if it
makes you a better pilot and
more comfortable to have one go for it. But is sounds like you only want
to hear one side of the story.
Jerry
do not archive
Michael D Hilger wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Michael D Hilger <rvsixer@juno.com>
>
>
>
>
>>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel
>>best
>>for them.
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> How about if you and Bob U both take a pill and let those who are
>interested
>BE interested...
>
> Mike Hilger
> RV-6 N207AM 500 hrs
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 11:00 AM, "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>
> Why dont we just build some ejection seats. We can probably find some deals
> in Tucson:)
>
>
> Do not archive
> Jeff Dowling
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff,>
Ejection seats are tremendously complicated and expensive to design and
manufacture- that is why only governments can afford them.
The seats and associated hardware would weigh much more than a ballistic
chute for this size aircraft.
The pyrotechnics involved in launching two 200lb people is several orders of
magnitude greater than simply deploying a 25lb parachute. That doesn't
include the charges needed to get rid of the canopy if necessary.
If used, you and your passenger are now separated from each other and the
aircraft, making recovery more difficult.
You still have the problem of your aircraft being a greater hazard to those
on the ground- under canopy it can do comparatively little damage.
If it were lighter, cheaper or easier, we would already be doing it!
Jeff Peltier
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 9:50 AM, "Dave Bristol" <bj034@lafn.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
>
>
> Their website claims 138 mph for the GARD-50 which is the 1,645 lb. model.
>
> Dave
> do not archive
>
> j1j2h3@juno.com wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>>
>> Just my $.02 worth.
>>
>> Re the weight and cost issue - I think MOST people agree that it's a
>> good idea to wear chutes for aerobatics. Okay - what is the cost and
>> weight of 2 chutes vs. 1 BRS? Also, I haven't seen a definitive answer
>> as to whether its even possible to open an RV canopy at anything above 80
>> mph.
>>
>>
Our latest canopy developed specifically with the RV series in mind has a
weight capability of 1800lbs and max deployment speed over 180mph.
Wearing chutes for aerobatics is not just a good idea- its the law at this
point. The weight and cost would be somewhat more. However, its basically
a passive system thats always there- you don't have to put it on each time.
You also don't have to train your passenger each time how to get out and
clear the aircraft, how to deploy it and when, or how to steer and land
properly. If for some reason that you needed to use your backpack type
system at the higher airspeeds (above 120k) your not getting out of that
airplane anyways.
Jeff Peltier
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Michael D Hilger wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Michael D Hilger <rvsixer@juno.com>
>
>
>
>
>>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel
>>best
>>for them.
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> How about if you and Bob U both take a pill and let those who are
>interested
>BE interested...
>
> Mike Hilger
> RV-6 N207AM 500 hrs
>
Sorry that you feel this way, Mike...
But, I'm not obliged to write what pleases you or be silent.
That's not what a freedom of speech is about.
If you find my comments not to your liking, control yourself
by not reading what I post, rather than attempting to police
or control me. It's the adult thing to do.
Bob
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 5:39 AM, "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my two
>> cents worth.
>>
>> 1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE. The
>> report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the fall of
>> the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even hit the
>> ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs. Other
>> Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
>>
>> 2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching over
>> water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute since my
>> luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush hour
>> traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in 30 knot
>> winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent the
>> occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the standard pan
>> used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of TEMP-R-FOAM
>> or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might swim to
>> shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of gliding
>> distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what kind of
>> superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
>>
>> 3. YMMV
>>
>> P.S.
>> Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his death was
>> caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces of the
>> aircraft.he was piloting.
>>
> I forgot to add --
> The above only applies if, BIG IF....
> if the ballistic chute can be made to deploy properly and repeatedly in
> the first place. This is hardly a 'given' at this point and I'd hate to
> assume anything that would jeopardize my next 50 years of successful
> flight. :-)
>
> Bob - over 50 years of successful flight
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Bob,
The Cirrus save you mention is not considered a "freak" save by any means.
When airplanes are drop tested to determine spinal loads on the occupants,
its done on very hard concrete-virtually anything else is gravy to us. The
trees in that incident also served to pitch the aircraft forward just prior
to touchdown, forcing the nose assembly to absorb virtually all the impact,
not the mains as designed. The fact is that when an in-flight emergency
occurs you can't always dictate where you'll be. What we do know is that
emergencies will occur whether you have a way out or not.
Jim Handbury died while tossing small parachutes out the door of his C150
not while testing ballistic chutes. One of the chutes got hung-up on his
horizontal stabilizer and he was no longer able to control it. He was
wearing a personal safety chute, but didn't quite make it out of the
airplane.
Jeff Peltier
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/26/03 11:54 PM, "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
> Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less than
> before. You use scare tactics and untruths
> to try to justify your chute on an RV. Using an example of a young
> eagle, (scare tactic) saying you have to be a tiny
> person to exit an RV-6. (untrue) I am 6'3" 210 lb. and would not have a
> problem getting out. Yes I have jumped out of
> airplanes before still do not see a need for ballistics in an RV. BRS
> were originally designed for ultralights that were having
> structural failures in the early stages. I believe that is still the
> best use of ballistic chutes after reading your saves and all the
> malfunctions on the airplanes they are installed on.
> BTW tell us what Van thinks of using ballistic chutes on his design? You
> say it is not an excuse for poor building
> practices, well I doubt very much that anyone is going to build their
> airplane poorly and say to him/herself I well just use a
> a BRS. So I guess I am still waiting for the myths you are going to
> dispel. By your 2 cent comment seems like you
> are not happy with the comments that don't agree with yours. BTW I
> noticed in your saves list only one Cirrus
> listed wasn't there another one where the chute did not deploy
> correctly? March 2002 I believe.
> Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel best
> for them.
> Jerry
>
> do not archive
>
> Jeff Peltier wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
>>
>> Dear RV enthusiasts,
>>
>> Thanks for the speedy replies! I always find it fascinating how fast people
>> are willing to throw in their 2 cents. And of course, the opinions usually
>> run to each side of the spectrum. The folks without a strong opinion- one
>> way or the other- don't bother to write.
>>
>> Based on some of the responses, I'd like to dispel a few myths and maybe
>> educate a few people on what we do.
>>
>> At BRS, we are the FIRST to advise that the parachute IS NOT the "panacea"
>> that some would think we believe it is. It is never an excuse for poor
>> building practices, maintenance, training or piloting skills. Our manuals
>> state that clearly. It is primarily for those occasions when all other means
>> of problem solving have been expended.
>>
>> As of the first part of December, BRS have saved the lives of at least 159
>> individuals (we don't always get reports of all saves). A deployment on a
>> Cirrus aircraft in late 2002 was our first save on a CERTIFIED aircraft.
>> That aircraft is now flying again, by the way.
>>
>> 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'm all for airbags, however. Used correctly, save lives!
>>
>> Parachutes are not a mysterious device which sometimes open and sometimes
>> don't. It is not a matter of luck or special dispensation from God which
>> makes a parachute deploy. It is the same phenomenon which makes your wing
>> create lift. The air passing over the outside of the parachute as its towed
>> by its payload, creates a low pressure area on the outside- literally
>> causing it to be "sucked" open by the atmosphere around it! (In fact, the
>> purpose of the patented Slider on BRS parachutes is to keep the 'chute from
>> opening TOO fast).
>>
>> "George in Langley" shared a concern about dangers of deploying over water.
>> I have a couple comments about that.
>> - Ditching an airplane, especially a low wing fixed gear airplane is extreme
>> bad news. The airplane WILL be very violently thrown on its back. If the
>> canopy doesnt shatter, it will probably remain secured in place against the
>> external pressures caused by the surrounding water and the weight of the
>> sinking aircraft. You're upside down in a bowl filling with very cold and
>> debris filled water, trying to extract yourself and your panicking, flailing
>> armed 14 year old neighbor kid (his first Young Eagle ride) from this mess
>> that YOU, as PIC and manufacturer of the aircraft, are responsible for.
>> - It is not the fault of the parachute system that you may have been over
>> water in the event you have to use it- it is the event itself.
>> - It would be infinitely safer to contact the water in a controlled vertical
>> descent, that would more than likely leave you right side up. Descent under
>> parachute gives you the time to plan your escape.
>>
>> "Phil from Litchfield Aerobatic club" would rather use a personal chute pack
>> system.
>> - At this time, its still the requirement for aerobatic flight- there is no
>> provision for waiver with ballistic chute.
>> - Having just rode in an RV-6 2 days ago, I would have to surmise that you
>> would have to be a very tiny individual to fit in the aircraft with a
>> parachute on AND still be able to get out of it when you need to.
>> - An experienced skydiver would most likely need to be out and clear of the
>> aircraft at least 1,500' agl. This would be quite a stretch for most pilots
>> and passengers, especially seeing that most people tend to stay with the
>> aircraft far too long.
>> - 100% useless at traffic pattern alt or less.
>>
>> In ending, every pilot flies with his own unique circumstances. We must
>> weigh the risks each time we take-off. We will take-off (hopefully) only
>> when we have assured ourselves that the benefits of this particular flight
>> are greater than the probability of experiencing the worst possible outcome.
>> As PICs, we tend to accept that risk for the joy and satisfaction our hobby
>> gives us. Your passengers generally don't share your exact outlook. When
>> they fly with you they place their lives in your competence, skill and
>> decision making abilities.
>>
>> I'm in engineering, not the sales department. This is meant to spawn a bit
>> more thinking into the matter. Can't wait to read the replies after this
>> one.
>>
>> Jeff Peltier
>> Design Engineer
>> BRS INC
>> jeffpeltier@BRSparachutes.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the rebuttal- its exactly what I'm looking for. (This is getting
fun) I think you may be misinterpreting our motivation with choosing Vans
aircraft as our next project. The cost (in many different aspects) and time
involved in doing a project like this is phenomenal. Please, don't get the
idea that our decision is based on our belief that a particular design NEEDS
to have one due to design shortcomings or structural problems. People
building airplanes like that are out of business soon anyways. We can't
afford to waste our time, money and effort on those companies that don't
show a promise of being around for awhile.
Our project decision is actually based on the opposite. We look for good
companies with a good product that are going to be around for awhile.
Doesn't really make much sense to expend the resources on a company without
a future. We've done that enough. However the biggest factor comes in the
form of specific requests for it. We simply can not justify the cost of
such a large project if the sales aren't there!
Airplanes are airplanes. Being man made and flown by us soft, imperfect
humans. Its not unlikely that one or the other may fail eventually.
Statistically speaking, the pilot is overwhelmingly the weak link and the
cause of most accidents. I'm sure you and I have both read NTSB accident
reports and thought to ourselves "man, what a moron this guy was". The chain
of events leading to an accident are obvious when laid out in a report. But,
how many times have you picked out one of the "links" of that chain and
thought to yourself "hmmm, that sounds close to home"? We've all done it.
Is it a scare tactic when Michelin (or Goodyear, or whoever) sat a baby in
the middle of a tire and said "because a lot is riding on your tires" ?
Is it a scare tactic when an insurance company shows video of a house
burning or a car accident?
How about when the commercial shows someone distressed about their unsightly
dandruff?
What some would call a "scare tactic" is merely a method of personalizing-
just trying to get someone to visualize himself in the same spot.
Again, thank-you for the input
Jeff Peltier
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/26/03 7:22 PM, "Dave Bristol" <bj034@lafn.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
>
> I just looked at the BRS website and it looks like an appropriate system
> for an RV6 would be about $11,000.00. (More than a third of the cost of
> my airplane) I personally think that eleven thousand dollars could be
> better spent on ratings and equipment. Yes, I do believe that it would
> add a measure of safety but the cost, both in dollars and in weight will
> most likely never be in my budget. If I ever get that paranoid about
> flying my own airplane, I'll buy an airline ticket.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Dave,
Price of the system for the RV series will probably be less than 6K. You
were looking at the system for the C150- which actually will not be as
capable as the new "1800". Parachute has already been through all its
testing earlier this year.
Jeff Peltier
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Jeff Peltier wrote:
>>
>>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>Thanks for the rebuttal- its exactly what I'm looking for. (This is getting
>fun) I think you may be misinterpreting our motivation with choosing Vans
>aircraft as our next project. The cost (in many different aspects) and time
>involved in doing a project like this is phenomenal. Please, don't get the
>idea that our decision is based on our belief that a particular design NEEDS
>to have one due to design shortcomings or structural problems. People
>building airplanes like that are out of business soon anyways. We can't
>afford to waste our time, money and effort on those companies that don't
>show a promise of being around for awhile.
>
>
Great reply Jeff, better than those that think I and others should not
voice our opinions. :-)
As I have stated in other posts if people need a chute to make them
feel comfortable
flying their airplanes then they should by all means have one. I think
you have a very big task
ahead of you redesigning the airframe to accept a chute and to make it
work properly
and actually save lives as it is intended to do. Your over water
deployment is probably a good
use of a chute, I don't buy the IMC deployment because when a person
finally realizes they are in trouble
it well probably be to late. The average time a untrained person get
into the soup tell they crash is about
176 seconds. This may be even lower for a slick airplane like an RV, so
a person has to get into soup
make decision they are in trouble and make a decision to pull the
handle. Hopefully the speed it not to fast
for deplyment by then. In-flight breakup would also be a good use but
other than some early
RV-3 and the factory RV-8 and one RV-4 structural failures are rare in
RVs. Without going into
details it is even debatable if a pilot would be conscious to pull the
cord in a wing type structural failure.
Once again my opinions and thougths others should do as they see fit.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
Cirrus appears to be selling more certified GA aircraft than anybody else
right now. I would be interested in knowing how large a factor the BRS
system plays in the decision to purchase a Cirrus. Just curious here in
Tucson where we have lots of ejection seats. Maybe even some of the ones I
used to pack the drogue chutes on in my early Air Force days.
Dan Watters
90736
Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "GMC" <gmcnutt@intergate.ca>
Hi Jeff
Since this topic has come up it has raised questions about safety issues and
that is always a good thing, so thanks for introducing this topic. Thinking
about this topic has caused me to review the NTSB RV accident reports for
the past year and to visit your web site looking for information.
As with all safety items there is a price benefit tradeoff, we are now
driving vehicles with mandated safety devices and many people choose to
drive tank like SUV's. In the future I am sure some RV's builders will
choose your product.
So I now have some questions about the cost and particularly the upkeep of a
parachute system, please use your current Cessna 172 system for answers to
these questions as they probably represent a good comparison to the RV.
1) what does the initial (C172) parachute system cost?
2) any unusual shipping or hazardous materials handling costs?
3) what would installation costs be for a typical 1975 Cessna 172? is this
done under a STC?
4) what is the inspection cycle of the system for continuing airworthiness
and by whom?
5) what is the life/inspection/replacement cycle of the rocket and what is
the replacement cost?
6) what is the life/inspection/replacement cycle of the canopy and what is
the replacement cost?
Thanks for the info.
George in Langley.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz>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Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
I just want to use a great big spring.
Jeff
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Perry" <eperry@san.rr.com>
I have the PC680 in my -8 with IO360B1E Hi-compression pistons and it has
spun the prop with no problem for the last 110 hours. Of course I just
jinxed it!!!! Give up the RG and the extra 12-15 lbs and go light......
Ed Perry
RV-8
IO-360-B1E
PC680
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
Subject: RV-List: battery
> --> RV-List message posted by: <jimmy@jhill.biz>
>
> Based upon note I have seen here, I recently bought an Odessey 580 battery
for my RV8A, with an IO-360 (200HP) Lyc. The batt is much thinner than the
old G-25.
>
>
> So thin that I wonder if it has enough capacity to handle this engine??
> What are your experiences with it??
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jimmy Hill
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 2:50 PM, "GMC" <gmcnutt@intergate.ca> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "GMC" <gmcnutt@intergate.ca>
>
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> Since this topic has come up it has raised questions about safety issues and
> that is always a good thing, so thanks for introducing this topic. Thinking
> about this topic has caused me to review the NTSB RV accident reports for
> the past year and to visit your web site looking for information.
>
> As with all safety items there is a price benefit tradeoff, we are now
> driving vehicles with mandated safety devices and many people choose to
> drive tank like SUV's. In the future I am sure some RV's builders will
> choose your product.
>
> So I now have some questions about the cost and particularly the upkeep of a
> parachute system, please use your current Cessna 172 system for answers to
> these questions as they probably represent a good comparison to the RV.
>
> 1) what does the initial (C172) parachute system cost?
> 2) any unusual shipping or hazardous materials handling costs?
> 3) what would installation costs be for a typical 1975 Cessna 172? is this
> done under a STC?
> 4) what is the inspection cycle of the system for continuing airworthiness
> and by whom?
> 5) what is the life/inspection/replacement cycle of the rocket and what is
> the replacement cost?
> 6) what is the life/inspection/replacement cycle of the canopy and what is
> the replacement cost?
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> George in Langley.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi George,
Great questions! Again, I'm not a sales guy but I'll answer your questions
as accurately as I can in the same order.
1. 15.995 (retail)
2. Shipping for sport units is 98.00 US.
3. Yes, its an STC. C172 is around 40 hrs (depends whos installing) . Our
install goal for the RV6,7,9 is 20-24hrs.
4/5. 10 years for repack for the rocket and canopy (C172)
6. The rocket has to be remotored and canopy inspected and repacked. For
the C172 it is around 3,000 in todays dollars.
Note: The systems used for the Vans aircraft, as with other sport aircraft,
do not have the same certification requirements as the Cessnas and Cirrus,
therefore the initial purchase price is much less and you don't need to hire
A&Ps to install it.
Jeff
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 2:46 PM, "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>
> Jeff Peltier wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> Thanks for the rebuttal- its exactly what I'm looking for. (This is getting
>> fun) I think you may be misinterpreting our motivation with choosing Vans
>> aircraft as our next project. The cost (in many different aspects) and time
>> involved in doing a project like this is phenomenal. Please, don't get the
>> idea that our decision is based on our belief that a particular design NEEDS
>> to have one due to design shortcomings or structural problems. People
>> building airplanes like that are out of business soon anyways. We can't
>> afford to waste our time, money and effort on those companies that don't
>> show a promise of being around for awhile.
>>
>>
> Great reply Jeff, better than those that think I and others should not
> voice our opinions. :-)
> As I have stated in other posts if people need a chute to make them
> feel comfortable
> flying their airplanes then they should by all means have one. I think
> you have a very big task
> ahead of you redesigning the airframe to accept a chute and to make it
> work properly
> and actually save lives as it is intended to do. Your over water
> deployment is probably a good
> use of a chute, I don't buy the IMC deployment because when a person
> finally realizes they are in trouble
> it well probably be to late. The average time a untrained person get
> into the soup tell they crash is about
> 176 seconds. This may be even lower for a slick airplane like an RV, so
> a person has to get into soup
> make decision they are in trouble and make a decision to pull the
> handle. Hopefully the speed it not to fast
> for deplyment by then. In-flight breakup would also be a good use but
> other than some early
> RV-3 and the factory RV-8 and one RV-4 structural failures are rare in
> RVs. Without going into
> details it is even debatable if a pilot would be conscious to pull the
> cord in a wing type structural failure.
>
> Once again my opinions and thougths others should do as they see fit.
>
> Jerry
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Jerry,
I believe the 176 seconds refers to that point at which control is lost
rather than the time they actually crashed. Time to crash would be dependant
on altitude. I could be wrong, I don't have the article in front of me.
You are definitely right about the needing to make the decision quickly.
Many airplanes can build up speed quickly with the nose pointed down. With
or without a parachute, as pilots, we are constantly in the pursuit of
answering those "what if" questions (or should be) that may not be covered
in the book. We are responsible for knowing how to operate the aircraft and
its systems. When you are parachute equipped, this to becomes part of those
what if scenarios. It is definitely not the answer to all problems. Its
only when all other means of dealing with a problem have been exhausted.
The idea of actually deploying a ballistic parachute is a scary one- you'll
tend to only use it when the alternative is scarier.
You bring up great points- I like to get people thinking (Man, this is fun!)
Jeff
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/27/03 4:06 PM, "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>
> I just want to use a great big spring.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff,
Sometimes, I just don't think you're sincere.
Jeff Peltier
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs (178 seconds to live) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Jeff Peltier wrote:
>Hi Jerry,
>
>I believe the 176 seconds refers to that point at which control is lost
>rather than the time they actually crashed. Time to crash would be dependant
>on altitude. I could be wrong, I don't have the article in front of me.
>
>
>
People if nothing else this topic of BRS chutes makes us think of safety
and as Van told me this morning
it is all of our jobs to promote safety. His as designer, and mine as a
flight instructor.
I am sure you all have read the following article. In the aftermath of
losing a friend a couple weeks ago
in bad weather I am posting this for thought. Jerry
***************************************************************************
How long can a licensed VFR pilot who has little or no instrument
training expect
to live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact? In
1991 researchers
at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up with some very
interesting
data. Twenty VFR pilot "guinea pigs" flew into simulated instrument
weather,
and all went into graveyard spirals or roller coasters. The outcome
differed in only
one respect - the time required until control was lost. The interval
ranged from
480 seconds to 20 seconds. The average time was 178 seconds -- two seconds
short of three minutes.
Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile
visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the
overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 5500 feet but your map
tells you that there's local terrain as high as 3200 feet. There might be a
tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are so you
press on.
You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the controls to
clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup. You peer so hard
into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight the feelings in
your stomach that tell you're banked left, then right! You try to swallow,
only to find your mouth dry. Now you realize you should have waited for
better weather. The appointment was important, but not all that important.
Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!" You've only
referred to you instruments in the past and have never relied on them.
You're sure that this is just a bad spot and you'll break out in a few
minutes. The problem is that you don't have a few minutes left.
You now have 178 seconds to live.
Your aircraft "feels" on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You
push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop
the turn
but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their original
position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a little faster
and your airspeed is increasing slightly. You scan your instruments for
help but what you see looks somewhat unfamiliar. You are confused so
you assume the instruments must be too. You are now experiencing full
blown Spatial Disorientation. Up feels like down and left feels like right.
You feel like you are straight and level again but you're not. The spiral
continues.
You now have 100 seconds to live.
You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding.
You're already down to 3000 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the
controls but the altimeter still unwinds. You don't realize that you are
in a
graveyard spiral and it only gets worse. Your plane is almost sideways
you're just tightening the turn by pulling up but all you can see is that
altimeter going lower, lower, lower. The engine is into the red and
growling and the airspeed is dangerously high. The sound of the air
passing by begins to resemble a scream.
You now have 45 seconds to live.
Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with
the controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into
the red. It's supposed to do the opposite! You can hear the wind tearing at
the aircraft. Rivets are popping as the load on the wings and tail far
exceeds design specifications. 1800, 1500, 1100 feet...... down you go.
You now have 10 seconds to live.
Suddenly you see the ground. The trees rush up at you. You can now see
the horizon if you turn your head far enough but it's at a weird angle --
you're almost inverted! You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . .
Your time is up!
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Inboard flap rib |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
I found one reference in the archives on this so I'm going to ask.
Is it possible to use AN426 rivets in the aft most holes on the inboard flap rib?
I can get the outboard rib with a no hole yoke, but obviously not the inboard
rib. The reference I found in the archives said to use MK319BS.
Thanks.
Ken
RV-8
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator Belt-Please Help |
--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
Folks
I have an alternator belt that has the following markings. F4340
37B19774-341 1:N:12:2.
This belt is being used on an 0320 with a Chrysler type
alternator(Electrosystems) and it seems to be 1" to 1 1/2" longer than I'd like
to see. The
adjuster will be nearly at it's limit with the belt at proper tension, and I think
it will not last long that way.
Is anybody out there familiar with Alternator Belt part numbers?? Wouldn't
you know that the Lycoming rep. is on holiday vacation until next year, even
though the folks that don't know are able to supply belts.
Thanks
Jim Nice
WA State
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Has anyone else out there done the 'flags' test on their SL30? I have
the SL30 and MD200-306 indicator. I run through the flags test. All is
good for each test except for the "LOC" I see nothing change...and I'm
not sure what I should be seeing, as there is no LOC flag or indicator
that I am aware of. All other indicators are used by the other tests.
Does anyone know what the LOC test should show?
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
Jerry,
BRS wasting their time? I think not. Other than a decrease in useful
load and the $, there's not much of a trade-off. I'm guessing, Jerry,
that you might be one of those mid-western pilots, rarely far from
decent forced landing alternatives. Being an Alaska guy, I'm often
over terrain I'd rather not land in. Quite often, really. As in
completely absolutely unlandable and hospitable . Have you never been
there (over unlandable terrain)? Then there is night flying. The
darkness is great at hiding those potential landing spots. I'm not
even going to talk about weather, or combinations of weather and
terrain or weather and darkness.
I landed in a pretty rough spot once when my pampered factory reman
IO-360 blew up. The airplane was totaled but I walked away. I was
lucky. The same season a Bonanza landed nearby and everyone aboard was
killed. If you'd try to land there in an RV with a bubble canopy you'd
likely as not end up upside down and dead with a boulder where that
plastic canopy used to be. Shit happens. Motors break. Systems fail.
With some regularity.
If you were to descend tail feathers first under a BRS chute in the
above mentioned scenario you'd likely live to laugh about it.
Frankly, I think we are mostly silly to fly around without helmets and
Nomex suits, but that's another discussion.
In a sense, it may be that single engine powered flight is a overrated
concept. There can be a rather huge downside to the motor quting, and
motors do quit.
B.
-prospective RV-9 builder
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 24, 2003, at 12:27 PM, Jerry Springer wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
> Very few accidents in RVs are such that a ballistic a chute would have
> helped. I realize that there were a
> couple structure failures that would have MAYBE saved a pilot but over
> all you are wasting your time.
> IMO!!!
>
> Jerry
>
> Jeff Peltier wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier
>> <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Jeff Peltier
>> Design Engineer
>> BRS INC.
>> (651)457-7491
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
> >>Weight, cost, complexity.<<
... there, you've got the definition of an airplane ;
)
B.
On Dec 25, 2003, at 11:30 AM, rv6tc wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
>
> Keith
> Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> . Seems like a good idea to provide another measure of safety and
> another
> escape route for something unexpected. Why not!
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Blanton Fortson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
>
>Jerry,
>
>BRS wasting their time? I think not. Other than a decrease in useful
>load and the $, there's not much of a trade-off. I'm guessing, Jerry,
>that you might be one of those mid-western pilots, rarely far from
>decent forced landing alternatives.
>
Actually I am an Oregon pilot, living about 6 miles from RV mecca. :-)
>Being an Alaska guy, I'm often
>over terrain I'd rather not land in. Quite often, really. As in
>completely absolutely unlandable and hospitable . Have you never been
>there (over unlandable terrain)?
>
Yes
>Then there is night flying. The
>darkness is great at hiding those potential landing spots. I'm not
>even going to talk about weather, or combinations of weather and
>terrain or weather and darkness.
>
I am sure you get it all in Alaska
>I landed in a pretty rough spot once when my pampered factory reman
>IO-360 blew up. The airplane was totaled but I walked away. I was
>lucky. The same season a Bonanza landed nearby and everyone aboard was
>killed. If you'd try to land there in an RV with a bubble canopy you'd
>likely as not end up upside down and dead with a boulder where that
>plastic canopy used to be. Shit happens. Motors break. Systems fail.
>With some regularity.
>If you were to descend tail feathers first under a BRS chute in the
>above mentioned scenario you'd likely live to laugh about it.
>
>Frankly, I think we are mostly silly to fly around without helmets and
>Nomex suits, but that's another discussion.
>
>In a sense, it may be that single engine powered flight is a overrated
>concept. There can be a rather huge downside to the motor quting, and
>motors do quit.
>
>B.
>
>
>-prospective RV-9 builder
>
>
Probably be safer for you to just stay in bed all day?
Jerry
do not archive
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
Very balanced note Boyd. Thanks.
B.
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 25, 2003, at 2:13 AM, Boyd Braem wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
>
> My attitude on this may be slightly skewed because I used to fly planes
> with this yellow handle that would make stuff under my butt blow up.
> Safety, or maybe, more appropriately "feeling safe", is a very personal
> thing. If "I" feel that a BRS would make it "safer" for "me" and thus
> increase my flying pleasure/confidence, I would put would one in and
> screw you all if you disagree, and vice versa. The PIC decides what
> he/she puts in the plane. Just about everything in aviation is a
> trade-off--speed, weight, cg, fuel consumption, speed, etc. How often
> do you fly? Over what terrain? How main good dead stick sites
> available at any given time? Your IFR/partial panel skills? What
> altitude do you usually fly at? etc., etc. I don't necessarily like
> situations where mechanical/electrical screw-ups are trying to kill me
> and I like to think that I act accordingly. Technology is constantly
> changing, giving us options that we also need to constantly be
> evaluating for "our" situation. I mean, you could still be flying,
> lying on your belly and shifting your hips from side-to-side to warp
> your wings. I guess that would be separate category for the Mile High
> Club--tho, two hips could be better than one, provided the movement
> was, uh, ah, synchronized?
>
> But don't chastise, harass or otherwise denigrate a pilot for doing
> what he/she does for their own personal safety. You are not Them.
> (OK, there are some weird cases where the pilot may have really gone
> over the top, nutso, whacko--maybe like putting in a turn-signal lever
> to use your position lights as blinkers--but it's still their
> decision--they may have to be arrested, later and Baker Acted, but
> that's personal responsibility for ya).
>
> Boyd.
>
> I Sincerely hope you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New
> Year!--and, then GET BACK TO WORK, YOU SLACKERS.
>
> do not archive
>
> On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 05:38 PM, van Bladeren, Ron wrote:
>
>> You fellas are missing the point. The benefit of the BRS is not
>> necessarily
>> it's ability to save your butt after you've overstressed the airframe
>> but
>> it's ability to give you another option to arrive safely on the ground
>> when
>> you're unable to do so for what ever reason. For example, most
>> weather
>> related fatal accidents could have been prevented if the pilot had
>> been able
>> to say "I give up" and reach forward to pull a red handle allowing him
>> one
>> last GOOD chance to survive.
>> Sender: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> Precedence: bulk
>> Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "van Bladeren, Ron" <rwv@nwnatural.com>
>>
>> We've all read countless stories here about pilots who have "iced up
>> their
>> carb filters", "got stuck VFR on top with no instruments or rating",
>> "lost
>> oil pressure over rough terrain", "engine failure at night" and on and
>> on.....all situations which require superior airmanship in order to
>> get back
>> on the ground safely. And under these types of high pucker factor
>> situations, superior airmanship is quite allusive. Crap happens, and
>> if you
>> fly long enough, it may happen to you.
>>
>> Fact of the matter, with the exception of the RV-3 these are all two
>> (and
>> four) seat aircraft and the responsibility we have as pilot-in-command
>> to
>> see to it that that person sitting beside or behind us gets safely
>> back on
>> the ground is paramount. If having that big lump of insurance
>> requires me
>> to loss 20 pounds of excess gut to do so..... well, sounds like a
>> prudent
>> thing to do.
>>
>> Carry on Jeff!
>>
>> Ron
>> RV-8A'er
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Denk [mailto:akroguy@hotmail.com]
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Ballistic parachutes on RVs
>>
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Fully agreed. BRS is a total waste of time, money, and useful load.
>> I can
>> just see it now..."oh don't mind that big lump of stuff back there Mr.
>> First
>>
>> Time RV rider, it's just an EXPLOSIVE parachute that I hope will never
>> go
>> off when I key the mike or get near a thundershower."
>>
>>
>> Brian Denk
>> RV8 N94BD
>> no stinkin' explosive charged parachutes on my airplane.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:27:56 -0800
>>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Very few accidents in RVs are such that a ballistic a chute would
>>> have
>>> helped. I realize that there were a
>>> couple structure failures that would have MAYBE saved a pilot but
>>> over
>>> all you are wasting your time.
>>> IMO!!!
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> Jeff Peltier wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier
>>> <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Peltier
>>>> Design Engineer
>>>> BRS INC.
>>>> (651)457-7491
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|