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
Hi Paul;
Pilot safety is obviously important. I assume the pilot has a chute?
fire suppression system? camera in the cockpit to see the
instruments and hear pilot flight test dialog? Getting the pilot
used to the flight characteristics, working out the kinks and
building confidence should be the goals of the first few flights.
(preferably while breaking the engine in at low/no-boost).
Even at low boost (turbo normalized), this aircraft should climb well
above its glide ratio flight path. Determining the flight
characteristics, takeoff, glide, landing (the equivalent of a POH)
is part of each flight test exploring different parts of the flight
envelope (at altitude). Progressive tests at altitude to determine
things like Vne envelope, proper dry-sump operation, fuel flow,
temperatures at altitude/speeds and proper high climb angle
operation prior to high boost-power runs.
I think one very important maneuver to practice is a minimum height
loss 180degree turn (for every aircraft) at idle power. Test at
altitude and climb speeds. It is a steep turn similar to a minimum
radius canyon turn - it takes a few practice tries. Glider pilots
practice something similar called a simulated rope break maneuver.
It will give you critical skills and (go-no go decision making)
information that may save your life in a climb out-engine failure
scenario. Then calculate a few scenarios based on runway length and
winds to see what you "need" to safely do a 180 or land straight
ahead. Simulate it at altitude over the field. Many light aircraft
should be able to do it in a few hundred feet or LESS with some
practice.
Fly Safe Cheers Cary Beazley
One problem with this aircraft is the size of the prop so it would
be high drag with a dead engine.
Paul Lamar
I think the point he is making is that you don't know that until you
have flown the flight tests and gathered the data required to do the
performance calculations. There seems to be a feeling of a need to rush
to proceed to the climb record attempt. Is there a rush and, if so,
what is the nature of that rush? Would it not be better to find the
cause of the rush and eliminate it?
What would it matter if someone else sets a new record before you do?
If your airplane is all you hope then you can shatter the new record
whenever you are ready. On the other hand, if your new record result is
somewhat less impressive than you hope it will not stand long any way
even if you set it first.
Would it not be better to run the tests, gather the data, and know how
to best utilize the capabilities of this notably exceptional airplane to
set the very best record that it is able to do? After going through all
the expense and effort to design and build this craft why leave
unappreciated performance on the table? Only good data will allow you
to make what you know to be your very best attempt at the record.
Mark LaPierre
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.