[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


In a message dated 2/15/99 11:52:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geoshaw@webtv.net writes:

> Chute designers,  FAA , and Dale A. seem concerned with top speed of
aircraft. In most scenarios the disabled  plane > will be at landing speed or
slightly higher, when chute is deployed. 

Dale A. is still concerned that the chute will not take a worst case scenario
at all. I plan for the worst and hope for the best. While some may say that it
short sighted, I do not want safety equipment on board that can make a
situation worse if deployed before a certain set of variables have been met (
Sorry honey! I can't deploy the chute until I get the speed down to landing
speed. Now where did that canard go...). I just don't have the patience to
wait for a bad situation to get better. I want to fix it NOW!!! Typical

>  EXAMPLE 1: engine failure on takeoff, with 700 or more ft .  alt., suitable
wind and visibility, may elect to go around > >  without deployment. Bad
visibility, or lower altitude, deploy . speed well below 100 mph.

So far so good....

> EXAMPLE  2: midair in landing pattern, deploy, again speed will be below 100

Still ok...

> EXAMPLE 3: engine failure on top over mountains, slow down, then deploy.

Structural failure in turbulence??? At a Velocity cruise, that could be well
over 160 knts.

> EXAMPLE 4: propeller failure, possible dislocation of engine, and damaged
controls (if they have been routed thru  >engine area). Pitch control should
be available in canard aircraft for slow down before deployment.

I don't know. It depends if we can really get the elevator bearing issue
squared away. But that would be a good example. What if Simon's failure of the
bearing had happened during a high speed decent? Already nose low and moving
along, a BRS wouldn't have done much good without elevator control to lift the
plane in an attempt to get anywhere near a "landing" speed.

> More Velocity comments: Retrac doesn't leave much room for chute. Easier to
install in fixed gear model. Connect >chute to spar , No cable too canard!

Great! I guess I don't need it after all then. And without the cable to the
canard spar, can we assume that the plane will land "gently" nose down?

> When we have 1000 of them is service, we will prove their value, and we will
learn how to improve their reliability.

Are you offering a discount on the chute seeing as we are part of "ongoing
research and developement"? How about really inexpensive insurance? How can
you make your claims with such a statement in the same E-mail? I want to see
some info on the canard installations and proof of concept, thank you. As I
stated earlier,  I want a safety device that can be used in ALL areas of the
envelope that my plane is capable of performing in. And unless you folks
respond to that demand, you will find that your chutes will be limited to the
ultralight industry Cirrus not withstanding. Nothing would aggrevate me more
just prior to my death than knowing I have a $5000 BRS system that I couldn't
use because I simply was going too fast into the ground. No thank you.

Dale Alexander
173 RG gull-Wing