X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:35:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2262045 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:09:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.144.208; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-d22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.cdc.18a4bee9 (52324) for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webmail-dd18 (webmail-dd18.webmail.aol.com [205.188.104.18]) by ciaaol-d02.mail.aol.com (v118.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIAAOLD0210-cc6446c1d39a212; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:08:58 -0400 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: The Cirrus, the Farmers Daughter, and the BS X-Original-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:08:58 -0400 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8C9ACA48E54C065_358_1A69_webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 29047 Received: from 72.19.171.41 by webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com (205.188.104.18) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:08:58 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8C9ACA48E54C065-358-CF0@webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-IP: 205.188.104.18 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8C9ACA48E54C065_358_1A69_webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 1)? You are absolutely right that starting in a Cirrus is not a good idea.? The 150/172 approach is much better. 2)? You are absolutely wrong, however, in your characterization of the BRS.? They are not designed to lower the airplane at 1500 fpm, looking for a steep slope in order to survive.? The weight?rating on those puppies is that weight resulting in a 25 foot-per-second descent rate at an altitude of 5000 feet.? I know this because last month I was in a telephone conference with the two senior engineers at BRS.? We were asking whether a light sport amphibious airplane (1430 pounds) could use their chute intended for land-based light sport airplanes (1320 pounds).? This is when they described how they rate the chutes.? With our higher weight, we would have a descent rate of 25.7 fps, which might be acceptable if other impact-attenuation devices were used (such as crushable seats) but we'd have to convince them of the survivability at this higher descent rate first.? 3)? You are absolutely correct that a last-ditch parachute system which depends on having enough controllability to slow to 165 KIAS is a pretty foolish and useless concept -- unusable unless maybe you're on fire over the mountains.? Myself, I don't believe in BRS's at all, but then I didn't believe in air bags either until I head-on collision with a teenager driving on the wrong side of the road last year.? (70 mph rate of closure and me in a Miata.? I walked away.? Maybe them things are useful after all...) And no, there's no farmer's daughter in this story either...sorry! - Rob Wolf ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ----------MB_8C9ACA48E54C065_358_1A69_webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" 1)  You are absolutely right that starting in a Cirrus is not a good idea.  The 150/172 approach is much better.

2)  You are absolutely wrong, however, in your characterization of the BRS.  They are not designed to lower the airplane at 1500 fpm, looking for a steep slope in order to survive.  The weight rating on those puppies is that weight resulting in a 25 foot-per-second descent rate at an altitude of 5000 feet.  I know this because last month I was in a telephone conference with the two senior engineers at BRS.  We were asking whether a light sport amphibious airplane (1430 pounds) could use their chute intended for land-based light sport airplanes (1320 pounds).  This is when they described how they rate the chutes.  With our higher weight, we would have a descent rate of 25.7 fps, which might be acceptable if other impact-attenuation devices were used (such as crushable seats) but we'd have to convince them of the survivability at this higher descent rate first. 

3)  You are absolutely correct that a last-ditch parachute system which depends on having enough controllability to slow to 165 KIAS is a pretty foolish and useless concept -- unusable unless maybe you're on fire over the mountains.  Myself, I don't believe in BRS's at all, but then I didn't believe in air bags either until I head-on collision with a teenager driving on the wrong side of the road last year.  (70 mph rate of closure and me in a Miata.  I walked away.  Maybe them things are useful after all...)

And no, there's no farmer's daughter in this story either...sorry!

- Rob Wolf

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
----------MB_8C9ACA48E54C065_358_1A69_webmail-dd18.sysops.aol.com--