Ian Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Hey Doug Did you approve when the Wright brother's wing warping got replaced by ailerons and rudder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 When I think about engine out scenarios here, unless I can find a good road to land on (and others question that because it may put others in danger) my likelihood of making a good landing without ending up upside down are pretty slim. Soft ground, tall crops or beans, ground obstacles, snow, etc. will all take the nose wheel off even at minimum speed. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 I see the military ejection seat scenario as an "apples to oranges" comparison. If no one has ever been hurt on the ground, I would have to say that it is only a matter of time. This is not to say that BRS should not be used on that basis. After all, if the aircraft is in an uncontrollable attitude, and cannot be recovered in flight, It might hit someone anyway. I am more concerned about aircraft that can still glide, but the chute is pulled on a more elective basis............Now the aircraft is out of control. Can you say how exactly they are "apples to oranges"? Both are ballistic safety systems designed to save the crew of an aircraft, while (most likely) sacrificing the airplane itself. Both can and have been used in similar circumstances. The only scenario a BRS has not been used in that an ejection seat has is airframe loss due to enemy fire. The only practical difference is the speed and weight of the airplane involved, and that comparison is NOT to the benefit of your argument. In fact, people HAVE been killed on the ground by aircraft post-ejection. I think this is because the airplane at that point is a heavy, high-speed lawn dart filled with kerosene (and possibly explosives). In contrast, a BRS deployment lowers the airplane at 20-30mph. I bet If I taxied into you at those speeds with my airplane (or even a Cirrus) with the engine off, you'd be able to walk away from the collision unassisted. You are also missing the fact that if the airplane can still glide (as can many airplanes from which people eject), you can *pick* the spot where you deploy to some extent. This minimizes risk to persons or property on the ground. I'm not disagreeing with you on personal minimums, but there are a lot of flights I would make that are a lot safer with the chute. My flight over the Grand Canyon, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Ian, I don't know what a "wing warping" is. Mr. Morden, I don't know, maybe ejection seats in tactical fighter jets, and parachutes on GA single engine aircraft are the same. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping My point is that innovations always arrive, should those taking advantage of them be penalised for using them? I'm 100% in favour of the BRS, especially on the CT - as a two seater, if I want to take my young grandchildren flying I brief them on what to do if grandad were to become ill - "Pull that big red handle hard and turn the keys off" I'm sure that gives both them and anyone on the ground a far better survival chance than sitting alongside me in the Cherokee6 that I used to fly in the event of my becoming incapacitated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, This will probably get me in big trouble. Like I have said however, I am Switzerland on the BRS issue. Is it possible that a plane under canopy, floating down into possibly the biggest hole in the earth, maybe bouncing off of the canyon walls into an area with no cell or comm radio service, and possibly far from search and rescue might be a bad scenario? Ian, In general, my answer to your question is: absolutely not! Things are not usually that simple though are they. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Doug H., I would suggest reading either David McCullough's "Wright Brothers" (may become a movie) or Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" (Crouch is one of the Smithsonian Air and Space curators.), or both. Either one will give you a sense of aviation history and what wing warping is. I think NASA is experimenting with it as more efficient than ailerons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Doug, Cool thanks. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ian, I completely agree with your position relative to your grand kids. I don't have grandchildren, but I do have children. If I took them up in an aircraft with BRS, I would most definitely brief them on the same scenario once I felt that they were old enough to understand. In the US, we cannot have three souls on board a Light Sport aircraft though. I don't think anyone would ever even think of any kind of legal action if a non-pilot pulled a chute for that reason........regardless of the outcome on the ground. I know that I surely would not, even if the plane hit my house and killed my kids. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Doug H., I would suggest reading either David McCullough's "Wright Brothers" (may become a movie) or Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" (Crouch is one of the Smithsonian Air and Space curators.), or both. Either one will give you a sense of aviation history and what wing warping is. I think NASA is experimenting with it as more efficient than ailerons. NASA is experimenting with wing warping again since modern materials have a very long lifespan compared to materials at the start of aviation. The downside to rigid control surfaces is the spillover and mini-vortices that occur at their edges when deflected. The upside to rigid surfaces is the ease of maintenance and extremely long life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Wright Brothers were using birds as their inspiration. And how to birds turn? Hint: they don't have ailerons! But they did have a few million years of evolution to get it right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, This will probably get me in big trouble. Like I have said however, I am Switzerland on the BRS issue. Is it possible that a plane under canopy, floating down into possibly the biggest hole in the earth, maybe bouncing off of the canyon walls into an area with no cell or comm radio service, and possibly far from search and rescue might be a bad scenario? Of course it's a bad scenario. The point is that engine out over the Grand Canyon without a BRS is a much worse one. I'd rather glide down into the canyon, pick my spot, then descend to the ground at 17mph, than to glide into the rocks at 45 knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C ICEY Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Why I choose to have BRS. or another reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn-0lMh9fKM cheers PS. I once had to make the choice, and I chose a long landing in a short field, over BRS into the trees. It worked out for the best. BRS is about improved choices. In the absence of access to even a short field, the chute will have done quite nicely, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, I would possibly agree if I could guarantee that I would not drift into a wall........my parachute then becoming a streamer. My personal minimums keep me within glide distance of flat land....BRS or no. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden,I don't know, maybe ejection seats in tactical fighter jets, and parachutes on GA single engine aircraft are the same.Doug Hereford I know you are being snarky, but sarcasm is not an argument. If you really think there is a difference, please state your reasoning. If I'm wrong and you actually agree with me, apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I am not a fighter pilot, and I have no concrete facts to support my opinion so I resort to metaphorical tactics. To me comparing an ejection seat on a tactical fighter to a GA parachute is like comparing a bulletproof vest to a pair of safety glasses. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, I would agree if I could garrantee that I would not drift into a wall........my parachute then becoming a streamer. My peraonal minimums keep me within glid distance of flat land....BRS or no. Doug Hereford If you want guarantees, flying is not for you. But statistically you are safer using a BRS than making an off airport landing. Never flying where the land isn't perfectly flat seems a bit boring, if not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I am not a fighter pilot, and I have no concrete facts to support my opinion so I resort to metaphorical tactics. To me comparing an ejection seat on a tactical fighter to a GA parachute is like comparing a bulletproof vest to a pair of safety glasses. Doug Hereford The only real difference is the speed and weight of the airplane, and the size of the deployment envelope. They serve the same function using similar means, as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I am a boring flyer. To be sure! Not being snarky or sarcastic either. Doug Hereford PS Tom, you may have your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I am a boring flyer. To be sure! Not being snarky or sarcastic either. . Fair enough. I like to have fun and fly in different areas, within reasonable safety parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, Ive been asked a few pointed questions.....I will ask you one. You said that you believe that it is largely fiction that pilots take more risks with BRS. I have read everything you have posted. Is that true for you? Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Encore560 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Hey Doug Did you approve when the Wright brother's wing warping got replaced by ailerons and rudder? After reading all these posts I'm shocked that Orville was willing to fly the Wright Flyer without an operational BRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, Ive been asked a few pointed questions.....I will ask you one. You said that you believe that it is largely fiction that pilots take more risks with BRS. I have read everything you have posted. Is that true for you? Doug Hereford I have not done anything in my airplane I would not do without BRS, but having it makes me feel better about flights over mountains, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Mr. Morden, Okey dokey. You understand why I asked I hope, given the nature of the repeated questions I have received on my position? Tom, You asked me a pointed question too (and you are an FAA FAAST team member). I don't mean to pick a fight, but do you, or anyone else (except Encore560) have an opinion about risk taking with BRS, in light of this thread's posting so far? Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I used to fly in front of a 2-stroke 50hp Rotax. I had a 2nd Chantz ballistic chute. I would fly low where it wasn't forested but would climb till I had a glide to a landing zone before crossing over anything where landing would be dangerous. This proves that If I don't trust my engine I won't depend on my chute and do it anyway. I have even had 2 emergency landings where I didn't pull, one of them I had lost a main landing gear, the other I couldn't restart after gliding and landed in steep terrain. I am truly reluctant to pull. Crossing the same forests with my CT I am willing to do it without climbing and having a glide to a landing. This is not because of the chute but because of the more reliable engine. With heavier aircraft, Cessna, Piper and Mooney I have no tendency to fly low. All in all I'm more alligned with Doug H then 'pull early, pull often'. PS If anything makes me bolder its my avionics and syn vis. I did get stuck for over 30 minutes while flying a mountainous route 1,000' below the peakls in smoke that went to zero visibility. I'm way more comfortable in inadvertent IMC with the glass panel than I used to be with steam gauges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.