Online Community of Zenith Builders and Flyers
The moderator asked me to start this as a result of commenting on the subject under another topic.
I'm far from an expert, but I had suggested that there might be some downsides to drogues, such as fire. For example, if this plane had been higher and the fire had ignited before it hit the ground, I presume the outcome might have been different http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8SYYz1myaI . I suggested that in some cases having individual chutes might be preferable, but if the drogues are deployable below a thousand feet, they might be preferable. To be super-safe, one might want both. My bias is, however, that as long as the airplane is flyable, one might be better off in the airplane, with no drogue deployed. It would seem to depend upon the circumstances.
I have a lot more questions than answers, and my "answers" might not be very good. I bought a pair for Phase I, but haven't tried them. Eased my wife's concerns though; therefore worth the considerable investment.
I also saw that post on the use of a drag chute. It sent me on a wild internet chase looking for someone else using a Deist drag chute in an aircraft application. I came up with nothing other than the use I of them I am familiar with, behind a drag car.
If I was reading the post correctly it was being used like a BRS chute, two completely different types of chutes. I sure wouldn't want to be in an aircraft suspended by a Deist drag chute, you wouldn't have to worry for long cause it would be a short ride non the less! Did I miss something very obvious?
Being ignorant of the Deist drag chute, I wouldn't know, so I guess I'll have to re-read the post. I thought he must mean a BRS of some kind . . .
The video is of a BRS.
If I was reading the post correctly it was being used like a BRS chute, two completely different types of chutes.
That was my take, also, Todd. Drogue chutes are generally smaller and used to slow-down planes, drag cars, etc., that are braking to a stop. Ballistic chutes such as BRS are intended for in-flight deployment to lower the entire airframe and passengers at a descent rate to ensure the survival of the passengers (even the pilot is just a passenger once the chute is deployed! ha!) but not necessarily the airframe.
BRS uses a 40' diameter/1257 sq ft canopy for gross weights up to 1350 lbs. If my math is correct, a 12' diameter chute provides less than a tenth of that area. Seems to me that's way undersized so I can't see how it could provide any benefit, but it's additional drag could make things a lot worse if the aircraft was still marginally controllable prior to deployment. And, of course, as the size of the chute goes up, that's why you need a ballistic/rocket deployment to both deploy the chute clear of the airframe and enable an inflated chute from a reasonably low altitude in a reasonable amount of time.
John thanks for that info, I had been scratching my head after reading about the 12' drogue chute. It seemed a bit small for a canopy slowing an airframe for a safe landing. When you posted the specs for the brs chute at 40', that put it into perspective. Merry Christmas
I guess I should have named this "Parachutes, Drouge Chutes, Drag Chutes, and BRS chutes.
I guess I should not have jumped to the conclusion that the "drouge" post must have meant a BRS chute--not wanting to be a stickler for terminology. It was beyond my wildest imagination that anyone would consider putting a drogue chute not specifically designed for the purpose. I hope the person who made the post will creep over to this thread and clear things up.
But getting to the meat of the issue, is there a consensus on whether or not it is "uncool" to wear parachutes or install a BRS? Certainly it is uncool to install any kind of chute that isn't up to the job of getting the wreckage down softly enough for survival. Is it more cool to dispense with chutes of any kind? Is it more cool to install a BRS than to wear chutes? What would the OSHA cowboy/pilot of a light sport look like? How about helmets, 4-point harnesses, and bubble-wrap suits etc.?
Wayne, I have seemed to notice a trend over the years on aviation forums that most people hate the idea of parachute packs, ballistic parachutes and even helmet use. It seems a person gets flamed for even bringing
it up. I have personally really been fond of the idea of all safety equipment like these, especially the ballistic chutes.
Most people complain about the extra weight or claim that you will never be in a situation where it would be a benefit. Again, I like the idea.