X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:56:17 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp106.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.254] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with SMTP id 2262698 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:16:59 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.200.254; envelope-from=wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com Received: (qmail 92679 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2007 22:16:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO your4dacd0ea75) (wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com@71.106.207.110 with login) by smtp106.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 2007 22:16:21 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 4iNeoZYVM1nv3ezKvuzL2tmjoFi5GtGWcWyo_.P933ljDrcSsKsOP088EmnHC.a6XV8mCl0wG7zSNlJN1aVpatXDbPizUNJjIvKI From: "Bill Edwards" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] The Cirrus, the Farmers Daughter, and the BS X-Original-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:16:18 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <008f01c7dec0$bcd34d00$2e01a8c0@your4dacd0ea75> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0090_01C7DE86.10747500" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0090_01C7DE86.10747500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ahhhh...25 feet per SECOND is not 1,500 feet per MINUTE? What am I missing here? -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of rwolf99@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] The Cirrus, the Farmers Daughter, and the BS 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. ------=_NextPart_000_0090_01C7DE86.10747500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ahhhh...25 = feet per=20 SECOND is not 1,500 feet per MINUTE? What am I missing = here?

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing = List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of=20 rwolf99@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:36=20 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] The = Cirrus,=20 the Farmers Daughter, and the BS

1) You are=20 absolutely right that starting in a Cirrus is not a good idea. = The=20 150/172 approach is much better.

2) You are absolutely = wrong,=20 however, in your characterization of the BRS. They are not = designed to=20 lower the airplane at 1500 fpm, looking for a steep slope in order to=20 survive. The weight rating on those puppies is that weight=20 resulting in a 25 foot-per-second descent rate at an altitude of 5000=20 feet. I know this because last month I was in a telephone = conference=20 with the two senior engineers at BRS. We were asking whether a = light=20 sport amphibious airplane (1430 pounds) could use their chute intended = for=20 land-based light sport airplanes (1320 pounds). This is when = they=20 described how they rate the chutes. With our higher weight, we = would=20 have a descent rate of 25.7 fps, which might be acceptable if other=20 impact-attenuation devices were used (such as crushable seats) but = we'd have=20 to convince them of the survivability at this higher descent rate = first. =20

3) You are absolutely correct that a last-ditch = parachute system=20 which depends on having enough controllability to slow to 165 KIAS is = a pretty=20 foolish and useless concept -- unusable unless maybe you're on fire = over the=20 mountains. Myself, I don't believe in BRS's at all, but then I = didn't=20 believe in air bags either until I head-on collision with a teenager = driving=20 on the wrong side of the road last year. (70 mph rate of closure = and me=20 in a Miata. I walked away. Maybe them things are useful = after=20 all...)

And no, there's no farmer's daughter in this story=20 either...sorry!

- Rob Wolf

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free = from=20 AOL at AOL.com.

------=_NextPart_000_0090_01C7DE86.10747500--