Raimo Toivio wrote:
> Useless when fire but most structural cases probably ok because you
> do not need wings /tailplanes/rudder/fin/engine when landing with a
> chute. It is fixed just behind the cockpit.
It appears to me as likely that an airplane that lost a critical part of
its flying surface will start gyrating, tumbling, spinning, and not
continue with straight and level flight. If the latter would be true, it
could probably be landed and you wouldn't need a chute. I can further
imagine that if you deploy a chute from a wildly gyrating, spinning and
tumbling airplane it will wind up the chute lines or possible wrap the
entire chute around itself. What about balance? Doesn't the aircraft
need to be somehow in balance under the chute? And what if that balance
is lost due to loosing an engine (prop blade failure) or wing?
In the statistics I found about BRS, most (if not all) situations where
the BRS was used was in a pilot induced emergency. Inadvertent flight
into IMC, icing, and two cases of pilot incapacitation. None after
structural failure, so we don't have proof that it would work in such a
situation.
>> Can the airplane be reused
>> after a BRS deployment?
>
> I think it is written off and only spares after landing but pilot and
> passengers can reuse their lives!
If the airplane gets written off anyway, then what is the advantage of a
BRS over personal parachutes? A BRS is heavier and probably more
expensive, and requires modifications to the airplane (and unless
someone has gone this route before, it will remain an experiment how it
works out on an Europa).
So, I was considering the option of using individual parachutes. So far
nobody seems to have an opinion on this....
Frans
|