storm1977 0 #1 December 23, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/22/airplane.parachutes.ap/index.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #2 December 23, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/22/airplane.parachutes.ap/index.html Now its clickyMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 December 23, 2004 Damn sorry... I was rushing :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #4 December 23, 2004 It's about 1.7....they are not allowed to do hook turns"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #5 December 23, 2004 I think those are the same guys that installed the Parachute on the Genesis capsule. One know the one....*BAM* into the utah desert... JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #6 December 23, 2004 Quote I think those are the same guys that installed the Parachute on the Genesis capsule. One know the one....*BAM* into the utah desert.. Regardless of the veracity of the claim.... It is well known that the definitive cause of the Genesis crash was a very obvious (and in hindsight, stupid) design flaw by Lockheed Martin engineers. The system was guaranteed to fail. The "Deceleration sensor" was designed and installed upside down. Theoretically, the parachutes COULD have fired during the acceleration of takeoff, but in hindsight it's completely inconceivable for the system to have operated correctly for landing. If you care, read more here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6541 Any connection between the failure of the Genesis probe and this manufacturer is entirely coincidental. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 December 23, 2004 From what I understand there is already one plane which comes with this type of system as standard equipment. I can't imagine how they'd develop one for "commercial" airliner applications. Who'd want to be the rigger for that massive piece of fabric? It would create a whole new level of project management type job. Hmmm....So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #8 December 23, 2004 QuoteQuote I think those are the same guys that installed the Parachute on the Genesis capsule. One know the one....*BAM* into the utah desert.. Regardless of the veracity of the claim.... It is well known that the definitive cause of the Genesis crash was a very obvious (and in hindsight, stupid) design flaw by Lockheed Martin engineers. The system was guaranteed to fail. The "Deceleration sensor" was designed and installed upside down. Theoretically, the parachutes COULD have fired during the acceleration of takeoff, but in hindsight it's completely inconceivable for the system to have operated correctly for landing. If you care, read more here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6541 Any connection between the failure of the Genesis probe and this manufacturer is entirely coincidental. _Am I've read more about that than I care too. The important thing for me however is that the payload was not compromised. I was just pointing out an interesting fact - to me at least. JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 December 23, 2004 But..but... we've learned here on SC that Engineers don't make these kind of mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #10 December 24, 2004 I don't know, but I DO know that I wouldn't want to pack it! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 December 24, 2004 The airplane that already has this is Cirrus. The system is "already" credited with at least one save. I put already in quotes because, believe it or not, this is actually a rather old idea and had been tested in the 1930s and ballistic recovery systems are -very- common in ultra-lights. As for commercial aircraft applications, you could probably never put one on anything much larger than a Twin Otter. Scaling issues would prevent the airframe from staying intact during deployments.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 December 24, 2004 I wonder if you could make the airframe such that it broke itself apart into separate compartments, each with their own parachute? I mean, if the plane is going to crash anyway, wouldn't it be better to save the passengers, even if it meant sacrificing the plane?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 December 24, 2004 I suppose, but you also have to understand that you'd still end up with aluminum and fuel tanks raining down which is definately NOT a good thing for anyone below AND a system such as this would only be useful in a -very- small percentage of instances. Most large commercial aircraft don't usually have problems in cruise flight that would benefit from a system like this. Most aircraft accidents happen during take-off and landing.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
