[[Template blog/front/global/commentTableHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]] Posted August 31, 2017 · Report reply 3 hours ago, andyb said: On his comment re the parachute, he didn't mention the 40+ knots of forward speed (3,900 feet per minute) associated with his off-airport landing. I realize that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the decision to use the parachute, versus an off-airport landing. And he had a successful outcome, which speaks for itself. However, in terms of the energy issue, it goes beyond just the vertical speed. 150 foot/minute vertical speed plus 40 knot forward speed has much more energy associated with it than 1,000 foot/per minute vertical speed. That's exactly the point I wanted to make. Not second guessing the pilot, especially since it turned out well, but the energy involved in a 40kt (46mph) touchdown with 150-300fpm descent (4-8mph) is a lot higher than one at 1000fpm (24mph) and essentially zero forward airspeed. The gear is designed to absorb such impacts, the engine/firewall is not.