That is an excellent idea for any first flight experimental aircraft.
I'll propose it to the pilot when he gets back.
Rancher Bob
I'll contribute the 1st $500. It's only money --the test pilot is
putting his butt on the line.There's a company in the Slovak/Czech
Republic, if I remember correctly, who have a proven product and at a
better price than the BRS people. Perhaps we could get a special deal
considering that this is an exciting and newsworthy project and could
get them a bunch of good publicity.
Bob Ripley
I'll put in $100 my self.
I'll get back to you Bob. I'll check with the boss.
Paul Lamar
I believe it is called MAGNUM BALLISTIC PARACHUTES
Vern Taylor
This is a wonderful idea for all home builts. IMHO it will
significantly make home building safer.
Paul Lamar
Something for everyone to remember is typically the ballistic chute
saves the pilot but writes off the plane. On a Cirrus the plane is junk
after using the chute it's only a last resort.
Bill Jepson
What fails on the airplane Bill?
Would a bigger chute help?
Paul Lamar
A bigger chute would likely help. The ballistic chute saves ultra
lights. But full size aircraft are descending at speeds that cause 20 g
impacts. If you look at the specs you will note that the gear will be
sure to fold and the bottom of the fuselage will get crumpled and the
stresses involved can effect the whole airframe. The pilot will be saved
which is the point of course, but BPs aren't going to save you with no
damage. If you want the plane back you will probably need to land it.
Bill Jepson
You can buy a chute for a 4,000 pound airplane from Magnum.
I suspect that would let our 1000 pound Harmon Rocket with the 650
HP under 200 pound engine down lightly.
Paul Lamar
Writing off planes is only a matter of money. Writing off humans is
something else!
Bob Ripley
Hi Paul:
I second the call to add a Ballistic Parachute to the TTC Project
.........
If the engine ever quit for whatever reason (MOTEC switching to
"limp-home" mode),
............at idle RPM, the 80-inch prop would become a BRICK WALL!
And the airplane could not glide to a landing.
Keith Moore
I think what might be possible would be to convert what velocity he
had to add a bit of altitude and slow it down before firing the chute.
Paul Lamar
Perhaps I missed a post but all I know about this guy is that he is
an experienced commercial pilot who made a decision to not fly an
experimental aircraft. I could be described the same way, and the times
I have decided to not fly have been respected and have born out to be
the right move.
It has been pointed out that the mission for this aircraft is to
set a new world record and showcase the amazing potential of the rotary
engine. As such I would imagine all reading this would like to see sucess.
Our regulations here in Canada require flight testing when major
changes to an airframe are made. In one case we changed a push rod in an
anti servo tab circuit to an adjustable rod and then changed it back to
the original, TC wanted an additional 10 hours. Of course we had some
discussion over that but I would think that TC would be right if we had
hotrodded the plane to the extent this one has been. This is not your
Grannies ride to church on Sundays.
IMHO if I was the test pilot on this one, there would be a complete
publication ban on all activities till such time as the record had been
set. I am just as excited about this as the next guy, but it is not
about me. I would also want enough time in the air to get a feel for the
airplane in regular flight modes, including emergency procedures, before
exploring the edges of the performance envelope. There is a lot of
"stuff" with this engine that is not yet proven, as evidenced by the
fixes, chronicled over the last few months. I personally don't think one
or two quick hops and then an attempt at a world record is necessarily
very prudent.
Further opinion, this a/c is purpose designed and built, its holy
grail is its power to weight ratio. The base model of this design has
good engine out performance and good low speed abilities thus in the
event of engine failure a sucessful emergency landing should be
reasonably realistic if the flights are conducted in an area conducive
to such operations. If they are not, then the operations need to be
moved elsewhere.
There is an area of high risk in the event of an engine failure,
low and slow. Fortunately with this a/c that is a very small area and
not one where ballistic chute will help and where good pilotage is the
only option. Out side that area almost any emergency is most likely far
better off being flown to a landing. With a ballistic chute you lose all
control over your landing and thus you are more likely to have a bad out
come. Structural failure or unrecoverable spin, ballistic chute for
sure. Fire, pilot chute for sure. All other emergencies good pilotage
for sure, after all this is why we choose a good pilot. The chances of
the need for a balistic chute occuring are very very small indeed and so
adding the weight to
/this/ particular aircraft are unnecessary and
counter productive to the mission.John Rogi
You have some good points but a 747 pilot is not necessarily a good
home built test pilot.
A 747 pilot crashed a rotary powered tail dragger I did a lot of
work on.
I had a 747 pilot friend tell me how to land a 747. Keep it on the
glide slope and have the co pilot call out 50 feet on the radar and then
pull back on the stick.
I know some airline pilots that never ever slip. Slipping is a good
way to land when your are directly over the runway or a field. I always
slip the C182 just to 'stay in practice. When people learn how to fly
they are never taught how to slip.
Paul Lamar
Hi guys,
I fly a microlight, I was taught how to slip. Can be very useful.
Andrew Campbell
Excellent points on the ballistic chute idea. It is unnecessary. I cant
imagine that Boeing or Cessna would install a ballistic chute if they
were trying something like this. It wasnt even considered here until
this discussion, so really its only purpose would be to instill
confidence in the pilot. excellent points on 747 experience. Not even
close to whats required here. Its going to take some time for a 747
pilot to become really proficient with that plane.
There are guys flying all over the world that make these kinds of
flights daily. They do it out of necessity and they have done it enough
times that it is no longer intimidating. However their resumes arent
nearly as impressive as a 747 pilot. Some of them dont even have log
books, but one of these types of pilots could transition to that plane
quickly and there is no doubt in my mind that such a pilot would set a
better mark when the time came to actually go for the record.
If you put the worlds best drag racer in the words best formula one
car, it will take several seasons and several crashes before he can get
to the front. Same goes here. 747 and biz jet experience means very
little here. Bush pilot, acrobatic pilot, or maybe a crop duster pilot
is much more likley to set a record that will stand another 30 years.
Paul Shamlian
Our pilot has vast experience in many different home built airplanes. He
has completed over 50
and probably flown each and every one. Most had Lycoming or Continental
engines. He has also completed
PT6 copy turbo props powered aircraft and BD5 turbo jets.
What he does not have is knowledge and experience with rotaries.
He is also a ex aerobatic and air show pilot. He has crashed once or
twice in homebuilt s.
I think the ballistic chute is an excellent idea if it works down to a
reasonable altitude.
With minor improvements it could work to zero zero. The zero zero
fighter plane ejection chute has
two explosion. First the rockets sends the seat and chute up and then an
small explosion inflates
the chute.
This aircraft could probably reach 1000 feet by the end of the 2500 foot
runway.
I suspect that would be enough to do a 180 and get back to the start and
land.
Another scenario is the engine quits at 500 feet and half way down the
runway.
i suspect it would then be possible to slip it in and land straight
ahead with perhaps a
ground loop at the end of the runway. The plane get's off the runway in
2 seconds.
You have 1250 feet to do it in. I have landed in about 500 to 700 feet
many times
in the C182 on runways. One of the tricks is start the flaps coming up
just before
you touch down. A car can stop in 180 feet from 60 MPH with no
aerodynamic lift.
I would say double that to compensate for wing lift while on the
ground however
the flaps are locked up on the TTC.
If anybody has an opinion on this I would like to here it. Especially
RVx pilots.
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine free News Letter. Powered by Linux. If you want off
the list PLEASE let me know and I will remove you. ACRE NL web
site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube
http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
Copyright 1998-2017 All world wide rights reserved.