Parachute installation

[KFfan 151]

Hmmm

Any input on the priority of the 3 items?

[EDMO 1078]

Sorry,   I should have listed it as Plane, Wife, BRS.....in order of replacement, costs, importance, etc. !!!

EDMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[dynomike 91]

I have to say the chute really did help me get over my fear of turbulence.that little red handle was pretty comforting when it would get choppy flying a new (to me) plane

What I flew before this only weighed 400 pounds and would put the fear of god in a new pilot

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by dynomike

[EDMO 1078]

I don't believe that an in-flight wing failure has ever been recorded for an Avid or Kitfox....and there are some guys who fly the hell out of them in all kinds of weather - and it would probably scare you if they ever admitted to what their actual GTOW really was!

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[Altifly 1]

IMO, If I couldn't trust my own plane, or my pilot skills to fly and land dead-stick without a parachute, I wouldn't fly it...

I'm like Akflyer, I would rather take my chance on a horizontal crash, than to have a crushed spine from a vertical crunch, or a tree limb up my ass, and spend the rest of my life paralyzed !!!!

EdMO

Ballistic has 2 main applications : loss of controls due to "inner" cause (blocked or rupted command) or when external damage occur (damaged elevator is common reason), I fly in very busy airspace (gliders mainly)  . Structural defect seems rare for Avid but has been a valid reason of Ballistic use! (wing rupture..)

IMO that's enough reasons to try to install this ,I chose a BRS 900 (410kgs) , a little lighter, was even cheap (rocket supposed to be expired )

Was yesterday around fuselage uncovered, I still don't see where to install the canister due to control linkages in the middle ...

[EDMO 1078]

If I was determined to install a BRS on my Foxy, I would have to mount it outside on top center of the Skylight, or on turtledeck - I don't have room inside.

These planes are so draggy that it probably wouldn't slow you down much more than the large tires - Could put some fairing on it.

I don't know if the actuator handle is attached, or could be reached from driver's seat...

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[akflyer 1427]

I don't believe that an in-flight wing failure has ever been recorded for an Avid or Kitfox....and there are some guys who fly the hell out of them in all kinds of weather - and it would probably scare you if they ever admitted to what their actual GTOW really was!

EdMO

 

I will never admit to taking off over "gross weight"  Which by the way does not actually exist for experimental aircraft... its not listed on the paper work anywhere.. but I will tell you that I have taken off at a weight level that would rival that of a certified aircraft that had been load to gross weight ... with extreme prejudice.  When it takes me longer than 300' to get in the air and another 500' to break ground effect, then only be able to climb out at about 50 FPM I know I have a good load on board.

 

[1avidflyer 1983]

Seems to me I remember that in turbulence, an aircraft is stressed more if it's light than when it's heavy. Heavier it is, the sooner it stalls, and when stalled, the stress on the wing is removed. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading this, and it made sense to me the way it was explained. Of course landing and takeoff stresses go up with added weight, but in flight? Jim Chuk

[EDMO 1078]

Jim,

I have read the same thing - Still don't fully understand it.

Seems to have things to do with vertical velocity of plane wings when affected by a gust of wind is greater with lighter planes - Others have talked about the higher angle of attack before stalling when light -

I prefer a heavier plane and less bouncing around -

I want to fly, and that don't include stalling, except when the wheels touch ground.

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[akflyer 1427]

Makes sense.  I can fly the pacer or the 180 in air that just kicks the every loving crap out of me in the Avid.  I did have one flight as a passenger in a turbine otter that was 2100 pounds over gross... Through rainy pass in 80+ MPH winds.  Heavy or not, that was the scariest flight I have ever been on.. It was later that we found out the owner of the plane lied about the upgross kit being installed on that plane.  He later did jail time over that and a few other things.  I had the video camera running in hopes it would survive the crash and would give investigators a clue as to why we were a smoking pile of crap on the side of a mountain.  That video later ended up in court as evidence against the idiot.

 

The one and only time I would ever produce evidence against another pilot, but he tried to kill me and 2 buddies multiple times that day...

The wanker still owes me 5000 for helping get his round cowl otter out of a swamp... Nothing like being the guy that takes the last bolt out of an engine mount with that big radial waiting to smash me while a chopper was holding the load over my head.  Awesome pilot though and the engine moved less than 1/4" when I pulled the last bolt out.  I built the lift bar and the lift lugs for that operation as well to get the rest of the plane out of there.  Was a 3 day goat rope but we got it out.

[EDMO 1078]

Jim,

I think most of this light / heavy wing failure theory is because light planes are just not stressed for as much weight

(read that also as vertical velocity force) as the heavier ones.

For instance:

a 1000 lb GW plane to 6 G's is 6000 lbs of force.

a 2000 lb GW plane to 6 G's is 12000 lbs of force.

Does this make sense?

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[RobS 52]

A really good article about this can be found here: http://www.mountainflying.com/pages/mountain-flying/turb_va.html

 

While the heavier wing load certainly makes you bounce around less, it doesn't translate into less "weight/load" on the wing and that's why there are target "maneuvering" air speeds for all aircraft. I believe maneuvering speed is calculated at the airplane's max gross weight, and is a speed at which turbulence is guaranteed not to break the air frame (exceed the G-rating) or cause a loss of control (based on that max loading). So lower weight will certainly mean more bounces/less comfort - but it does provide a higher safety margin.

 

And probably should add . . . but at/over gross weight, smoother ride, and reduced safety margin.

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by RobS

[EDMO 1078]

Ron,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but we were not talking about overloading beyond GW, or the difference in loading the same plane with different weights.

We were trying to say that light GW planes are not built as strong as a heavier GW plane, and wind gusts can cause their structure to fail more than heavier built planes.

There are a lot of writings about light aircraft wings having more stress on them in rough air in comparison to wings of heavier aircraft. Most of it has to do with the vertical velocity forces being a greater factor, and the greater stall angle in a light aircraft when it hits an upward gust. Maybe that's why the sticks on my kite broke in a gust of wind?

Someone smarter than me has to explain it.

I am sure that there is an engineering formula for it, but I probably couldn't figure it out anyway.

All I know is that I don't like to be bumped around in the air, and have been injured by it, but that's another story to tell.

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[RobS 52]

Ed,

I agree, this is good dialogue, not a disagreement. My words probably didn't do the subject justice. Here's part of the article taken from the link I posted on mountain turbulence written by Sparky Imeson. I may be missing your point, but if Imeson's words are accurate it looks like even though you bounce more (and I don't enjoy bouncing either) in turbulence you're better off with a lighter load in you plane.

 

"Pilots notice that a heavily loaded airplane rides smoother in turbulent air. They perceive this as an indication that the airplane should be loaded to its maximum whenever turbulence is expected. This is a bad assumption.

 

Consider an airplane that has a maximum allowable gross weight of 3,000 pounds. If it encounters a +30 fps gust that results in an additional 2-g load factor, the airplane experiences a total of 3 Gs load factor. Multiply the 3-g load factor by 3,000 pounds and the wings are supporting 9,000 pounds.

 

Assume the airplane is loaded to 1,500 pounds and that it is subjected to the same gust. With half the inertia, the gust acceleration is doubled, causing the airplane to experience a 5-g load factor (4-g force plus 1-g level flight). Multiply 1,500 pounds by 5 gs and the wings are supporting 7,500 pounds.

 

The lightly loaded airplane is subjected to 1,500 pounds less load when encountering the same gust. Even though the heavy airplane realizes less load factor, it incurs more strain. The pilot recognizes load factor; the airplane recognizes load."

[EDMO 1078]

Probably something like Vmcsquared - Guess that was happening to me when I broke thru a shear and hit the bottom of a hole in the air so far down and so fast and hard that I tore something in the middle of my chest! Live and Learn!

At least the wings didn't come off of my Cessna...Just glad I wasn't in an Ultralight!

EdMO

Edited 28 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[RobS 52]

Ouch! Hope that experience is a distant memory . . .

[C5Engineer 1170]

Just saw where a Giles 202 ended as a smoking hole this afternoon after the tail broke off while practicing for an Airshow in New York today. A BRS could of probably saved him. There's a good video out there of the wing coming off a Rans S-9 Choas and the BRS saving him. I too have heard that there's never been an inflight failure of a Kitfox or Avid. I've gotten the shit kicked out of me up in Idaho a few times to the point I slowed down to 50 mph and held on.

[RobS 52]

I saw that too. Based on the video I saw, it was a pretty horrific ride into the ground! A BRS definitely would have helped.

[EDMO 1078]

I'm not saying that there is no benefit to having a BRS - I just don't feel the need for one in my plane.

EdMO

[akflyer 1427]

A fully aerobatic plane that gets twisted up every day.. yeah, I can see that. A plane with a crap safety record, I can see that. But a kf or avid with already limited useful load cruising at 80? Hmmm.

[1avidflyer 1983]

Now that I've seen a few comments regarding what I said, I'm remembering that the topic at hand was referring to maneuvering speed.  The gist of it was that speed should be lower if the plane is lightly loaded then if that same plane was heavily loaded.  Wish I could remember where I read it, so I could go back and make sure I'm remembering things correctly.  Jim Chuk

[EDMO 1078]

Jim,

I think you are correct on that statement too, and it works on the same theories.

I thought the topic was parachutes for planes?

EdMO

Edited 29 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[1avidflyer 1983]

Oh chute Ed, I guess I did get off topic.  Maybe I'll float back down to the topic at hand soon.  Jim Chuk

[EDMO 1078]

Glad you started the other part of the conversation Jim - All of it was connected to "Why a Parachute"..

I think I sidetracked from "How to mount a BRS"...

These broad-based conversations are a benefit to everyone, since we have different opinions and information on variables of the original subject.

OMG - Am I watching too much political rhetoric on TV? - Now I write that way

EdMO

Edited 29 Aug 2015 by Ed In Missouri

[marksires 484]

Now that I've seen a few comments regarding what I said, I'm remembering that the topic at hand was referring to maneuvering speed.  The gist of it was that speed should be lower if the plane is lightly loaded then if that same plane was heavily loaded.  Wish I could remember where I read it, so I could go back and make sure I'm remembering things correctly.  Jim Chuk

That is correct.  In turbulence inertia is your friend.