BRS parachutes in a gyro ?

[Victor Duarte]

hello

i know the first safety in gyro or airplanes are a good training, a well designed, build and maintained aircraft.. anyway..
no one can tell there will not be emergency cases..i whish no one has to face that kind of situation one day but..better be prudent.
as a rotor wanabee and in order to secure as much as possible my future aircraft, i wonder if a ballistic parachute can be used or have been tested in a gyro ? in fixed wings, a BRS parachute can easily be set up.
Whats about that in gyro or UL helicopters?

ok we have to face problems :
- the parachute cant be mounted on rotor or be lauched through it excepted by use of exlosive bolts (unreachable in common aircrafts).

- a BRS can be fired forward-down from the nose> the gyro would violently spin and cause the parachute to wrap in rotor or prop

- a BRS can be fired rearward > the gyro sudden drag can cause oscillations and cause the parachute to wrap in rotor or prop, BTW , if it works, the pilot will be the first to touch ground with the gyro falling on him (ouch..)

- i think the best cofig (if acceptable) whould be a BRS hanging the nose and fired by the side, allowing the gyro to land on the tail.

i have no known facts ot articles about that kind of experiments...

thanks
victor

[donshoebridge]

Just for reference, I've heard that if you try to buy a BRS type system for a gyro, they wont sell it to you.

[mrford61]

Didnt the Tandem Air Commands have them fitted a couple of years ago.? Thought I saw some in a magazine with BRS mounted on the undercarriage.

[Victor Duarte]

yes, i heard that also, i said BRS because anyone knows that brand but theres anothers..

http://www.galaxysky.cz/grs/eng/index.php?k=general
http://www.air.aventure.free.fr/bout_8_secours_ulm.htm (french language)
i dont know if they sell for gyro and would like to know why BRS dont sell (law/insurance/accident problems i guess)... but i v got to get one for shure,

i would like to know if there were tries to fit a such system and overall if it was succesfull, or had problems .. (i hope people survived to talk about that).

[barnstorm2]

Larry Neal was(is?) making a BRS system for gyros. I have seen it on tandem Air Commands.

Personally, so long as I have a good set of rotors I would rather fly those down...

[Victor Duarte]

Personally, so long as I have a good set of rotors I would rather fly those down...
for shure !!! but on my mind , i d "solo" my machine just after i ll be shure of its reliability.. maybe i m paranoïd ;)

if found somthing about larry neal : http://www.milehighgyroplanes.com/building_1

he talks about a BRS, il try to know what s he s mounting...

thanks you all for your imput !

victor

[Ron Marlett]

Air command had one fitted to a 2 seat tandem. They called it a GRS(Gyro Recovery System). If fired the chute down and back with its tether connected to the keel and up to the mast. From the top of the mast it was routed down to the right main landing gear strut to a "temporary" attach point. When fired it automatically shut down the engine.

The deployment sequence as I understood it was that when fired, the gyro would purposely be tumbled forward with a right yaw/left roll from the chute drag being applied well below and to the right of the center of gravity. This would reverse the flow thru the rotors and rapidly decelerate them. In theory, this would also keep the rotors away from the chute and tether. It would also leave the gyro hanging upside down from a point near it's right main wheel:). This attachment point was not the primary point however and the cable was I believe zip-tied up the landing gear to the main point on top of the mast. The attach point on the right main gear had a remote release, that after the rotor had slowed(and before hitting the ground), the pilot could pull a second handle and release that attach point. Gravity would then rip the zip-ties and the gyro would right itself and hang fom the main mast for final touchdown.

Sounds like a heck of a ride. To my knowledge it has not been tested...

[Vance]

When I read the NTSB accident reports, I don't see any accident reports that might have been made safer with a parachute. It doesn't take very long to hit the ground from 500 feet agl. Most of the accidents seem to hapen with even less altitude. I believe that thinking about safty is a good thing. The gyro gliders that the Germans used from submarines blew the blades off and shot the parachute up thru the mast. They flew at about 200 feet above the ocean. Thank You, Vance

[quadrirotor]

See Vol Moteur, juillet 2004, pp36-40, "ELA L'AUTRE CHOIX"
Must be used when the rotor is distroyed, seems to recover (side extraction) the gyro on his wheel as a big and long cable is attached at the mast!...Not yet tested...to be tested when money being found...

[Victor Duarte]

hi andre, vance, ron

thank you Ron for your very precise description. they seemed to have a great faith in their system ;) believing to slow the rotor and then release a zip... i never crashed, but i think you must be quite "busy" during a few seconds to coordonate a such procedure.
stopping the engine is a good idea...

yes Vance its the FA 330, a foldable glider, i agree that for fixed wings also, the most of accidents happen on take off and landing. i havent read all reports ;) could you say a lot of accidents are caused by a kind of "dangerous altitude" ?
Yes i also think a recov parachute is useless under 500 ft, but it could be useful for me, where i ll fly will be also mountains (cevennes), a landing place will be hard to find and i ll have to stay high to keep away from some traps (some places are forbidden to fly, canyons etc ). i just thought it could be a plus for safety, in case of...
it could be a good subject for a thread : what kind of terrain do you fly over..

André, how are you ? s..t i didnt buy this issue .. but i read something about ELA , a spanish gyro with a recover parachute..dont know much about it...
it appears that firing the Parachute to the side is the most make-able solution.
It appears also that all these people think the gyro should land on the gears... i think it can also land on the tail, the tail tube breaking acting as an absorber..

well.. very hard to have real cases....

thanks to you all
victor

[Rotornut]

Catfish keeps looking for a way to use the BRS. We have seen them on Rusty Nance and Mike Solanos Air Commands. But I agree with Tim good Rotors and Fly the Machine. Right McGowan! lol MJ :)

[Victor Duarte]

wow, i must applause your faith ! and also listen to your opinions...
well.. you gonna think i m but...but just imagine you build your own rotor (blades included)... would you honestly take the chance ?

just curious, whats your feeling when you fly over a danger zone, for example swamps (with alligators;))or dense forests .. i was given to hold the stick of a jet-ranger during 5 hours and i couldnt stop thinking "if a problem happens where should we land"..

heres an example of a place i flew over, its near of my hometown..
thanks to you

[Dean_Dolph]

Just for the record, there was a gyro that had a ballistic chute at the 1990 PRA Convention in Hearne Texas. I think it was Maxie Wildes'.

[Victor Duarte]

did you hear about a real case of having to use it ? of what i read, it seems no one had to use it (thanks god for them)...
what is your real opinion ? if we dont see more , is it because, you think theres no need for that, because it soulnd help a lot, because its costy (but if more people use them..they ll become affordalble) or because none tested it really ?
thanks dean !
victor

[Dean_Dolph]

Zeeoo, this topic pops up every so often and the general consensus seems to be that no one has confidence that a ballistic chute would work and even has the potential for causing problems. The use of ballistic chutes on fixed wings has been around for a long time but very few have been installed on gyros so that should tell you something.

Instructors that have Air command tandem trainers may feel they need an extra edge even though they have no idea what the result would be since they have never been tested on a gyro. But like Vance mentioned, if a problem develops at low altitude then it doesn't matter if there is a ballistic chute.

Personally I will take my chances with a well designed, well constructed, well maintained machine added to proper training to make the best of a bad situation.

[Rotornut]

Lets see if I can remember Steve Graves saying, Dont fly over anything you cant land on and always fly the machine, stay close to the airport, and always use your radio.

Not sure in right order but remember Catfish repeating this. MJ :)

[Victor Duarte]

Personally I will take my chances with a well designed, well constructed, well maintained machine added to proper training to make the best of a bad situation.
thanks dean, i also see the consensus and agree , i ve never heard about a recov parachute saving..even on VLA around me... would you be my test pilot? ;) thanks for the answer.

MJ, yes, i seem to remember something like that in my flight manual . :rolleyes: ...

just look at my homeland airborne : you can see at the end there's a cliff over a canyon, just after takeoff you reach 1000 ft, at the opposite, theres a town in a canyon, well i ll be up before the end .

[Rotornut]

Sorry Zero just repeating what I have Heard. Cause I sure aint no Pilot. MJ :)

[bloise69]

What do you think about this pictures of ELA parachute ?

[HillRider]

My immediate concern would be how is it intended to deploy? Rotors and propellers would either entangle or sever the lines.
If there was any chance that this might work, it must remain clear of any thing that would cause a malfunction.
In the event of a buntover the tumbling aircraft could wrap itself into the chute. Possibly a tail or undercarriage deployment would work, lowering the craft nose first or upside down (better than a free fall impact).
Who would be crazy enough to try such a thing out? I suggest extensive RC model testing before I would be comfortable trusting my life to such a device.

[Victor Duarte]

hi bloise,
thanks for the pics, ELA looks nice, but i see the parachute is in a critical place, the prop must stop before lauch... i m affraid, no real experiment was done :(
any stuntman there ? ;)

thanks

Hillride : i was answering just before you posted..we say the same thing lol
RC helico is hot a bad idea... my sister's BF has one .. i lltry to convince him to test it :D

[pwendell]

We all now that in order for a BRS to work, the rotor has to be stopped very quickly. I can think of two ways to do that. 2. Explosive bolts that separate the rotor blades from the hub bar simultaneousely, of course you then have really long knives falling down on unsuspecting people. 2. Some type of emergency collective that would increase the pitch of the rotorblades dramatically and quickly--Perhaps each blade could be attached to the hub bar by a pivoting hinge on one edge and a heavy, movable pin on the other. You pull the pins and the blades pivot up, with respect to the chord line, instantly increasing the angle of attack and slowing them very rapidly.

Probably just another hair-brained idea.

[rehler]

Peter,

In actual use, which do you think would cause more deaths:

1. The "emergency collective"

2. The "explosive bolts"

3. Having nothing at all

Or, which of the above is the safest? I sincerely believe #3 is the safest choice.

Consider the thousands of hours gyros have flown without such devices, as opposed to the chance of these devices accidentally going off unexpectedly and killing the pilot. My experience is that most home built complex features fail at some time, but few will kill the pilot as sure as these would.

[pwendell]

Ken,

I absolutely agree with you. I was just idley speculating. I wouldn't even consider a BRS unless, for some odd reason, I absolutely had to fly over hostile terrain quite often, in which case I should probably fly a twin engine airplane... I said the ideas were hair-brained:)

[rehler]

Peter,

I've learned that the more things I have on my gyro the more things I have to break. So why is my gyro so complex? No excuse!

I firmly believe that "less is more" ... more or less.

[Victor Duarte]

hello peter and ken, thanks for debating,

as said peter, its "hair-brained" discussion....
i agree with you ken, the 3rd is the better, a well-flying gyro is the most expectable config... but have it flying safe is quite a long process particularly for a full-homebuilt..
i think you think "come on buy a kit and let's finish with that"
yes you re right, that s what some french gyrofans say to me ..
if i do that its fo my pleasure, as an architect (my GF is architect too) you can understand what makes people building....
honestly, i dont think a BRS is going to save my life in most of situations at low altitude.. since we have not eject seats getting us 200 ft higher in a second ;)
i just think that if theres a chance to save some one at high alt, maybe a BRS sould help...

following with peter... yes explo bolts and a kind of rotor-stopper sould be more dangerous than safe , remember the first airbags that would explode with no reason..
the main dangers avoiding the use of a parachute are : the prop and the rotor, each spinning too fast can cut or "roll" the cables... so the BRS sould be fired from rear (sould be ok, particularly for tractive), front (danger), undercarriage (altitude loss, useless) or side...
personnally i think on a pusher, the parachure should be fired from side but hanging the nose, ok it will cause a violent flat spin on the frame, but with rotor clearance.. then the gyro falls on its tail ... and the pilot falls on its back.
just "hair-brained" ideas

can i ask a question, have you also a roof altitude to fly ? i think that the gyro being a recreationnal manoeuvrable aircraft, not (mainly) a travel aircraft, manoeuvres at low altitude are a main factor for deadly crashes.. to be discussed..

thanks for your imputs
respectfully
victor

[darrellwittke]

Of what Dean said, this topic comes up every so often with usually the scheme of explosive bolts to get rid of the blades then deploy the parachute the plan of well meaning dreamers (like me, I thought I was the first to figure out such a plan years ago.)

Two things I have never seen mentioned about parachute deployment from gyros though, are:

BASE chutes, worn by the pilot with an opening possible for 60 feet. Better to rig it for a slightly slower opening of 100-120 feet though. (Recomend Consolidated Rigging. Several skydiving rigs will have open reserve canopies in the same distance (ex. Jump shack Racer.) Problems are sufficient separation from gyro when you deploy since I noticed Chuck B. calculated freefall of gyro would be roughly the same as a human. I suspect not however, though I can't back it up. Other problems are training and ability to react correctly under pressure.

This is a viable alternative for the die-hard safety fanatic though. Better than a big round parachute deployed at less than 500 feet though. Poynters manual (the parachute bible) volume 1 claims a malfunction rate of 33 percent for rounds without anti-inversion netting, albeit most of those malfunctions would be line overs or "mae wests" and survivable.

The other thing is why jettison the rotors? They have probaly stopped or slowed significantly when the hit the tail of the RAF and even if they didn't, I don't beleive they have enough force to break more than a few strands of Spectra or even Dacron (at 825lbs a piece.) I also don't know that it would have enough force to deflate a deployed parachute. The only danger is it would catch it in the vulnerable early deployment stage which is why I would recommend the BASE rig if I felt it was worth the weight.

But I don't, I am surprised how much the rotor blades can mimic a parachutes flight envelope, in fact the only real benefit I see to a parachute in a properly designed gyroplane is to be able to hang up in tall forested area's without impacting the ground.

Anyhow, that's my thoughts on the subject, for what its worth. As always, thanks for reading and thinking.

[pwendell]

Victor,

I hope you weren't insulted by my 'hair-brained' crack. I didn't mean it to be insulting. Gyros are simple aircraft and have a unique and quite wide flight envelope. They can fly low and slow in relative safety and can land in an emergency almost anywhere that is free of obstructions. Even a totally inexperienced passenger could most likely land a gyro well enough to survive just by closing the throttle, pulling the cyclic back and 'parachuting' to earth. But gyros can't do everything well. Personally I don't think I would fly for any length of time over unlandable terrain in a gyro. It's just too dangerous and there is simply so little time in a gyro to do anything but land when the engine quits. Again, if I had to fly over a lot of very rugged terrain, I'd probably want a twin engine plane. I could never afford a twin engine helicopter!!

I don't necessarily think flying low is a major contributor to gyro fatalities. Yes, you need to stay out of the 'death' region of the height-airspeed curve, but other than that, any trained pilot should be able to walk away from a forced landing in a gyro if the landing area is reasonably clear, the flight controls are operational and the gyro they are flying is not in an 'unstable' flight regime. A stable gyro should, by definition, never be in an unstable flight regime barring massive pilot error, i.e. manuervering into extended negative Gs, or control failure. A PIO leading to PPO is fatal at any altitude. No bunt is survivable, but a stable gyro should never bunt.

I firmly believe, like many others on this board, that a stable, well-built gyro with a properly trained pilot is one of the safest pilot/aircraft combinations flying. But I'm going to stay near a nice road if I'm flying over the mountains/forest!!

[Victor Duarte]

darrell, interesting point of view as you seem to know a lot about parachutes... you talk about BASE , do you mean base-jump? sorry for im not american, so i may confuse the words.. could you tell more ?
i agree that the most of pilots (i think) are not trained in emergency procedures...
i m not a safety-fanatic, just trying to get all chances of surviving, just in case..safety is the main concern in aircraft. for shure, avoiding neg G situations is the safest way to fly... also is training in case of engine loss..

perhaps the next "dreamers" will think about a system preventing rotor RPM losses (peroxyde tip rockets or tip jets) ...

any opinion is worth to be discussed..

thanks darrell
victor

[Victor Duarte]

peter, dont worry i dont feel insulted at all !!!
even if you would "shake me" i d just reply ;) wellcome ! just go on!

you said it : avoid death zones ... keep a road in sight.. right, i think i can also do that.. i ll forget marvelous places i wont fly over :(

yes, i agree stable gyro/good training/maintenance if the winner trio..
when you say "a gyro sould never bunt, no bunt is survivable" thats it..

i want to tell you why i m scared about that..
7 years ago, i was to buy a used gyro to a guy, a "guepard", well, the pilot was skilled in gyro, gliders, and FW ... i went to his hangar and asked him if i could see it fly... i was impressed by take off (without pre rot) first good point, he did some manoeuvres... nice to see it fly, and suddenly, i saw a little beginning of bunt...the blades "mixed" a little, i could see and hear it... the gyro had a little roll forwards.. but the pilot got it right... after that he did a "parachute" landing, pretty well, i was won to gyro... but he told me he had a little fear... since this i always kept it in mind...
when i talk to FW pilots, all say "ah ah you go for a widow maker?" , lets say that by reading here, i progressively deal with those black words that are "mast bumping, bunt, PIO" as FW pilots have to deal with spin, stall, flutter..

thanks for debate, this way you do the right work for a newbie like me..i learned one thing from a helico pilot : dont deal with death.

thanks
victor

[Heron]

The BRS on a gyro is just a last resort to save a life, you still have that lever to pull when all seems lost.
ONe thing I do not understand is why it has not been tested yet, it could help on the insurance issue and the cost is not big.
If it works like they say, it will be a good addition.
Heron

[donshoebridge]

Sorry, but I haven't been reading all of the posts, but I have to throw a couple more tid-bits in on this topic. When I was in the Air Force, I worked on ejection seats. So from an emergency parachute deployment position, I have a little knowledge.

My guess would be that the best location would be above the rotor blades in a round pod that looks like that of the radome on an AH-64D Apache helicopter. Right in the center of this pod would be the deployment rocket, firing straight up.

If you examine the flight envelope of a gyro, in almost every case, we're low and slow, and for the most part, our rotors are above us. In an emergency situation when the chute would need to be deployed, in the majority of the cases the gyro is not in an upright position. In fact, most of them are tumbling. So even if you were able to fire the rocket, my guess would be that you would become gift wrapped in the chute. There's a chance that it might deploy correctly and you wont become tangled. Just about every ejection that I've seen (video), every one of the "occupants" was tumbling, and only one of them got wrapped in his (test dummy) chute.

On the Stencil ejection seat used on the Harrier, the chute has what is called a Ballistic Spreader. The Ballistic Spreader is a device that when the chute gets far enough away from the pilot during an ejection, this device explodes and blows the chute open. In a gyro, the opening shock would surely snap off the mast. So now the mast needs to be beefed up BIG TIME! Which may also be the case without the spreader.

With or without a spreader, time is the biggest problem. Once an emergency occurs, it would take you about 3 seconds before you could decide to pull the handle, reach for the handle and then actually pull the handle. Rocket firing would only be a fraction of a second, but just for the chute to exit the container would be about 3 seconds. Then the chute must inflate, which in most cases there is a device that keeps the chute in a "reefed" (partially closed) condition for at least 2 seconds. This is to allow for the "mass" under the chute to slow down so that when the chute fully opens, there isn't as much opening shock. Keep in mind that these numbers are typical for a pilot in an airplane equipped with an ejection seat. If you slow the aircraft down to 50 mph, chute deployment time will become really long, possibly as much as 7 seconds. If your gyro is tumbling, there's no way to know which direction your chute will deploy - up, down, forward, to the side, etc. If the rocket fires when pointed forward, chute deployment time is going to be even worse.

The whole time these events are taking place, you're vertical speed is increasing. For someone that is flying below 300 foot AGL, my guess is that you're going to be a statistic.

Just something to think about. :rolleyes:

[bloise69]

The BRS on a gyro is just a last resort to save a life, you still have that lever to pull when all seems lost.
ONe thing I do not understand is why it has not been tested yet, it could help on the insurance issue and the cost is not big.
If it works like they say, it will be a good addition.
Heron

I task exactly like you, it is just the last one chance.
Always better than nothing!!! Franco.-

[Heron]

As far as positioning on the gyro BRS it is pointed down and right, when deployed it should lean the gyro away from the canopy and then upside down, after the second release it goes back to the top of the mast and turn it right side up.
Remember this will happen when you have lost driveability, controls or blades . . .in the case of a bunt over after a strike I don't know about the pilot's ability to do much of a coordinated effort.
Anyway it is a last resort, sorta last rites before the Lord . . .
Heron

[rehler]

When a balistic parachute on a fixed wing ultralight goes off by accident everything is safe. On a gyro, unless it is above the rotors, will probably kill the pilot. There is a BIG difference - one is safe and one will kill!

The only gyro with a balistic parachute that I would fly is one with it located above the rotors. All others are too risky for me to trust my life to.

But in "real life" when you need the parachute the mast may not be there.

[ahancock]

Don't think that above the rotor is a very good place for a brs. If the gyro is right side up, I'll come down on the rotor. if I Pio or ppo the gyro wiill be inverted. Not a good time to pop a chute that was above the rotor, but the time that a chute is really needed.

[Heron]

If the first lever kills the engine, how big of a "bump" will the canopy deliver to the giro?
Will the turn be a snap or a more slow effect will be created?
Heron

[Helidev II]

I think that one thing to remember is that with helos and gyros, they already have a pretty effective parachute, the rotor. Indeed Cervia turnded to rotors as a saftey device for fixed wing.
When you can put down in a very small area, especially comapred to fixed wing, the need for a redundant vertical landing system is reduced.
OK I freely admit that while in pricipal it would be nice, for the added complexity, how much safety are you really gaining. As Don pointed out under 500ft, the chute aint gonna help that much.
Looking at the footage of the air show ejections, I must admit that a zero-zero system would be nice, but very expensive.
The only operational system I know of is fitted to the Ka - 50, attack helicopter. It works by firing off the blades, which may be acceptable on the battle feild, but I cant see the FAA or CASA putting up with it.
I saw a show on discovery which had footage of some US experiments firing off blades, then a rocket went out of the canopy, with a tether pullung the occupants out behind. I was deemed to complex to be of value.
In my opinion it would be better to have a more crash worthy structure. The Apachie is survivable upto a 37G impact, the occupants will experience 13G.
While Gyros are simplistic to reduce weight and cost, I feel that this is one area a good deal of improvement. Concepts like the Smart Strut are a better move that a BRS, IMHO.

[Victor Duarte]

hi christian, don, heron, and all others

as some suggested the subject "eats its own tail",
no one can give a correct answer, i think don is the best placed to talk about chutes, (see on his site), but in fact there was NO experiment about it and as some said, there is no better place to mount a chute.. everyone has is own idea..
we dont talk about ejection systems or explosive nuts.. its for homebuilt purpose... not military..

the main thought about this is that a good gyro is the best parachute, allright... thats partially true .. a gyro is unstable by definition... the death is so close.. just push this dammn stick forward a second and... adios
its just like if you had to sleep with a rattlesnake... you can sleep.. but not move...

before a serious experiment will be done, all we can do is speculate..
thanks

[pwendell]

the main thought about this is that a good gyro is the best parachute, allright... thats partially true .. a gyro is unstable by definition... the death is so close.. just push this dammn stick forward a second and... adios
its just like if you had to sleep with a rattlesnake... you can sleep.. but not move...


Victor,

I think you're being a little dramatic. The Gyro I fly has never done anything to scare me, although I've scared myself a few times... If behaves predictably and doesn't try to kill me, which is about all you can ask for. Let's be honest, flying IS dangerous. Flight is an unstable condition for a human being. Standing is an unstable condition for a human! Sure, there are things that you as a pilot can do in a gyro, or any other aircraft, that will surely kill you. You can also walk in front of a bus or turn your car into oncoming traffic. In a stable, well built gyro, assuming that you know what you're doing and don't want to die, I promise you that you're not just going to accidentally shove the stick forward and hold it there until the rotors stop. In my opinion, the mistakes that are most likely to hurt you are going to made during takeoff and landing, especially in gusty cross-winds. These risks can be minimized, although never eliminated, through training and good Aeronautical Decision Making.

I'm going to repeat myself -- FLYING IS DANGEROUS. The risks can be managed and reduced to what I feel is a reasonable level, but flying a small aircraft is never going to be as safe as lying in bed or riding the train. As pilots we knowingly and willingly assume these risks. Some of us will die doing what we love, but the vast majority of us won't. Some of those who die will do so because they made a (series of) mistake(s), some because their machines let them down at the wrong time, and some will simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's life.

[Victor Duarte]

Victor,

I think you're being a little dramatic. -- FLYING IS DANGEROUS. That's life.

peter i like your imputs ;)

yes you re right everything is dangerous, for example my beloved wife, today, closed the car's backcase door on my head !!! , she didnt see me searching inside !! fortunately, she s not HULK :D

i totally agree with you, flying is dangerous, and all the talent of ths pilots is be good enough to ride the danger... to be honest, peter, if i look for safety, thats because i must discipline myself before building any aircraft, lot of years ago, i was able to put my back in a gyro and just fly it...but i m gonne be father quite next week :o
between madness and paranoia, i just try to "balance" .

honestly if i was really looking for being out of danger i wouldnt even talk about gyros ;) (dont tell my mother i m gonna build one, she will kill me before :D)

thank peter

[hcaliste]

I know this is going to be like chum to sharks, but as unlikely as it is, a low altitude save is possible.
This is from Sun N' Fun in 1999:
Low altitude save! (http://www.ultralightnews.ca/brs/saves/123.htm)



Herbert

[Victor Duarte]

gooood (for him)
and a little spark that may give some fire...
thanks for this post

[Helidev II]

snake eating its tale, I like that.
Personally I find flying safe than driving, even though there are more things that could go wrong and kill you. Eagles may soar, but badgers dont get sucked into jet engines.
I cant speak for gyros, but from my understanding its reasonably similar.
For me now, I get nervous in fixed wing. Funny after flying in them alot over the years, but the fact that Im going to need a lot of room to put down makes me very nervous. Compared with the tennis court I need to put a helo down in.
There are very few emergencies that a rotor wont get you out of, and out of those few would benefit from a BRS.
Once you start to pilot rotary wing vehicles you feel alot more confident at their ability to keep you out of trouble.

[darrellwittke]

I feel if I were traveling over forbidding terrain and it was mandated to have an engine (or engines out) I would be best served by a gyrocopter. The light blade loading allows a more survivable descent rate than the helicopter, especially in the case of banging the rotors to the stop on trees perhaps 100 feet tall, then freefalling to the forest floor. I also beleive a stouter crash cage would be beneficial for survival chances because of this scenario.

Drawing on my 10 years of smokejumping experience while looking at Victors photos, I would say there are a couple spots in the canyon bottom you could squeeze a gyro in and survive. Even on the sides of the mountains, you could settle into the trees and probaly have a good chance. (Remember, there was an air command in australia landed in a tree and hung up appx. 30 ft up.) I can't imagine a fixed wing could offer even close to the same chances of survivability as a rotor wing (impact speed, angle of impact, etc.)

For your information, Victor, BASE does stand for building, antennae, span, earth that people use one parachute (actually there is one reserve and main system on the market) system for leaping off.

Other notes, I also liked the idea of mounting the parachute above the rotors until I seen Chuck B's calculation that it takes appx. 1/2 second for the RAF to torque upside down from a ppo/pio. About the same for the parachute to string out and start deploying, unfortunately straight into the relative wind opposite of where it need to be.

Also remember parachute fill time is most directly dependent upon volume needed to inflate it. Therefore big rounds cannot open as fast as small squares without spreaders as Don mentioned, and I don't believe BRS messes with that level of complexity.

Therefore I have talked myself into liking my idea even more! (imagine that!)

I think the idea of a BASE rig (virtually the same, maybe twice as thick, as a regular back emergency chute FYI) with a static line connected to the gyro is an RAF drivers best chance of survival from ppo/pio. I would suggest the pilot bail out as fast as possible in a cannonball position and have the static line deploy the BASE parachute.

Rationalizing this, the chances of a malfunction are somewhat higher with the unstable body position (cannonball) but every pilot is likely familiar with it and it is an instinctive positionand the pilot should drop like a rock in comparison to the RAF. The beauty of the BASE rigs is that they come with zip toggles on the steering lines that can be released in case of a lineover malfuntion and the pilot then can steer with the back risers. In either case he would have a fairly good chance of survival.

(From reading reports of eyewitnesses on the forums and viewing the accident at Farnsworth, it doesn't appear to me that gyros keep tumbling after ppo/pio, thereby minimizing chance of being clipped by gyro or rotors.)

Hey! This is a good idea! Somebody send me money so I can get a BASE rig and an RAF to test it out! (I would do it! I've got a USPA D license.)

Any readers are more than welcome to look this up on the net, or call and get a BASE manufacturers opinion and post what they find, I'll bet my money (OK, maybe Ron or Ken's money) this is the most viable method proposed yet for parachute usage on gyrocopters. Sincerely darrellwittke

[Jerseywing]

I'm just a newbie but it seems that the only time you'd need a chute is if you're in a Bunt (inverted). At that point it seem logical for the chute to deploy aft/under then lift from underneath the cabin- along the axle or so and let you come down upside down. It may not be the most desirable way but it's simple and it'd get you down in some sort of controlled manner. You may suffer some injuries but it'd be better than nothing. I was trained that qualified operators following approved procedures will pretty much assure that you stay safe. (Always keeps the Surface/Dive ratio at 1 and the water out of the people tank!) The reality is also that when it's your time it's your time and there isn't much you can do about that.

[Victor Duarte]

darrell, christian, michael and everybody, i appreciate your post as you took time to think about this subject

first, if i think in BRS its more in case of bunt than in case of mechanical hazard at high altitude, in this case i agree, i prefer have a gyro with the rotor spinning than a FW, THE advantage of gyro bein the vertical rate of descent.. my concern is really what to do if the rotor stops, in this case the gyro wont be much safe than a FW.

yes , in the photos i posted, i admit, theres a spot in the end of the canyon where we can land with a gyro.

i appreciate your viewpoint of skydiver, do you think mos of the common pilots will be able to get out theyr gyro and have enough calm to jump ? honestly, in my case, i think i wont unless i have a good training.
i practiced bungee-jump 6 times and all i remind it is : the ground comes VERY fast ;) but its great !

in fact we cant give a general way-to-go for chute .. we dont really know what will be the attitude or the gyro in case of bunt, i dont think a mast mounted chute is a good soution, because in case of roll, the chute will be wrapped in the rotor due to relative wind, i still thinking, the best solutions are a side firing, we are shure there will be no rotor, nor prop there, or a tail ejction, the tail being in theory the stabilizing element, it sould always be oriented up in case of fall...

i agree with you, BRS dont have an expanding device in their chutes, it would become a firework ;)

i just think also that RBS or others are not fitted for a gyro, they have a "long distance" deployment scheme, while gyros would need a shorter one (like in jetfighters or gliders drag chutes), the base jump devices could be very iteresting if someone find a way to start it quick, perhaps a mechanical ejection.. just throwing ideas

and ,no darrel i cant give you money to test it ;), but i notice there s a stuntman here ;) , but really, a RC model would help.

MICHEAL > you re a little "fatalist" ;) i m not, thats why i think in delaying "my time"

i will try to perform a dynamics simulation on my computer just to have visually an idea of a predictable behaviour..

great thanks !!

[donshoebridge]

I know this is going to be like chum to sharks, but as unlikely as it is, a low altitude save is possible.
This is from Sun N' Fun in 1999:
Low altitude save! (http://www.ultralightnews.ca/brs/saves/123.htm)


This article doesn't go into any detail about the attitude of the aircraft. If the airplane was trimmed and in level flight, it's easy to see that the BRS would have saved him. Because the aircraft was still "flying", the chute was able to inflate behind him. But I'll bet that if he'd been 90 degrees nose down, the outcome would have been totally different.

[donshoebridge]

If anyone is considering a BRS for a gyro, you need to look at the failure modes. If a bunt-over is the concern, then add an effective horizontal and play with the CG a little bit. Call it an ounce of prevention.

If a catastrophic structural failure is the concern, then the forces on the gyro from a chute deployment may also cause another failure and you might hit the ground long before the chute. Therefore, the chute must be attached to a very strong member of the airframe, and if the connection point is strong enough for a BRS, chances are that the airframe isn't going to fail in the first place.

If flight control failure is a concern, on an open style gyro, pre-flight checks of the flight controls isn't a big problem. Yes, there has been the odd few time where a rod end has popped loose, but there are ways to counter the little stuff like that. But as for tubes breaking, make sure you're using 4130 for those components (like my Hornet, imagine that) and arrange them in such a manner that if a weld were to fail, you can still fly the aircraft well enough to land safely. Cables are another problem all together and (except for the pilot), is probably the weakest link in the flight controls.

If you have a rotor blade failure of some kind, depending on how it happens and when, you could have you head removed by a blade. No BRS is going to save you from that.

IMHO, I don't think a BRS can provide anymore safety than a well designed, and well built gyro. The BRS could be looked at as life insurance, but like with every policy, there's specific times and circumstances that the policy is good and other times where your not covered. With a gyro being so short, I think the chances are good that any in-flight failure will likely cause the aircraft to become inverted and\or tumbling and you run the risk of getting hit by your own blades. If you're lucky enough to not be hit by the blades, chute deployment will be iffy at best. For the ultralight gyro guys, I don't think it's worth the cost or weight.

[Hognose]

About two years ago I talked this through with a couple of BRS execs -- one of them was Dan Johnson, who has since moved on.

They felt a mast mounted chute would be the best, which would of course require a diffferent sort of head from the one to which we're accustomed. They were familiar with Larry's system and thought it was conceptually interesting but a bit fiddly, and noted, as does everyone, that it's untested and not really practically or safely testable. A test of the system is simply too risky. Note that when BRS tests its airplane chutes, it does so in two phases:

1 deployment phase. Tested by a testpilot at altitude. He then cuts away and recovers normal flight and lands.

2 landing phase. The a/c fuselage is dropped at an acceleration equal to what it would have under full canopy. For certified a/c instrumented test dummies are used.

In other words, the first full performance test of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute (designed and built bt BRS) was in a customer aircraft. I don't believe there has ever been a live deployment of its Cessna (150, 172 and soon 182) systems.

The BRS has a patented slider which corrects for the speed of the aircraft on deployment. At high speed it opens the chute slowly and in effect meters the air in. At low speed, the chute opens very quickly. Lowest altitude for a full deployment in ULs is 50 to 75 feet (around 20m). There is a 25ft (8m) altitude save but it was a partial deployment.

The Spanish ballistic chutes are direct, unlicensed copies of the BRS systems, and will not be available in nations with strong intellectual property laws, as they probably infringe BRS patents.

In a gyro, blade flap could be a serious problem. Mast bumping in a gyro usually results in the main rotor blade striking the tail, but sometimes also the cabin. This usually results from decayed RRPM, for instance in a bunt where the airflow which keeps the rotor disc under centrifugal force stops. But the RRPM would also decay precipitously as the BRS fires, causing the blades to flail around.

I agree with all who suggest that complicated systems are false security. Friend of mine died when his BRS wrapped around his pusher prop. In his a/c deploying the BRS was a two-step process -- you had to cut the mags first. Bad machine/human interface == mission failure.

I also think we could do far better in terms of crashworthiness. The only gyro that seems to give you a chance in a prang is the Little Wing. The Army has done massive crashworthiness studies, and civilian aero/structures engineers study them.

As far as Darrell Witke's idea of bailing out in a BASE rig static line -- uh-uh. You and the gyro are falling at the same rate, in parallel, the SL never deploys. Note the number of jump-plane crashes where the jumpers don't get out, also. Egressing a falling aircraft is difficult. In Germany in about 1974 there was the famous "Death by OSHA" CH-47 crash that killed something like 44 skydivers. ONE guy got out and the basic difference was that he bounced next to the Hook, and his was the only body not burnt. (FWIW I have a bunch of military static line jumps, no civilian jumps).

That says, if your goal is to be an open-casket funeral, you may achieve it by jumping. The unpleasant fact that many gyro prangs are followed by fire is not as serious as it might be, because most gyro fatals are accidents that are unsurvivable due to deceleration forces. If we tame the deceleration forces (which may not be practical with the weight and volume we have to deal with), we then will have to address preventing or surviving the postcrash fire.

cheers

-=K=-

[Victor Duarte]

well..thanks for all comments, really good and argumented thread indeed
it appears that we can not trust a chute on a gyro as a reliable device.. btw the cost for an uncertain efficiency is not justified...

so ... question, dont you think the teetering rotor is a factor in mast bumping?
i m also amazed that most of rotors are not weighted at the blade tip (i mean like in a helico one) .. the inertia sould be a factor of safety (at least during seconds), but most of people dont mind. on y our opinion, are 3 bladed rotors safer ?

about crash fire, kevin, i posted a thread here to have opinions about crash safe tanks.. but no really satisfying answer..
i plan to build my own tank that will be semi-rigid with an interior rubber skin weaved with fiberglass roving, the tank will be filled with special foam balls, this system is similar to race cars tanks and prevents explosion because it emprisons te gases.

http://www.pronal.com/html/content.php?kid=1313

thanks

[Johnny Skoch]

I have been flying my gyrobee with a BRS 750 for 2 years. As soon as I can figure how to attach a jpg to a post I'll send the photo for you all.

Its mounting location is bound to spur a little discussion, However there a logical reasons for its mounting position...


Regards

~johnny

[Victor Duarte]

i guess more of us are starving to see it...
its funny, everytime we find a kind of common agreement, theres always a little blow to re-activate the fire ;)
thanks johnny

ps : for attachements look for a button called "manage attachements" much below the text-edit field

[Johnny Skoch]

I figured it out, photo is on me landing at cushing field in IL last year. BRS is mounted high on mast as I wanted the pounds above the CG. Rocket fires downward, Attach point is lower cluster plate.

Most final moments in fatals have the gyro INVERTED before impact with blades stoped or slowed. (read NTSB stuff for that)

Not worried about landing inverted, its the velocity that concerns me...

The chute is ONLY for that senerio. Bunt...If the baldes are turning and the machine is upright its not going to work.

If I could get the fuel above I would have put the chute low. but having the extra weight and drag above the CG makes her fly solid

~johnny

[Victor Duarte]

did you try under the seat ? CG problems perhaps..
its a good thing that you didnt have to test it... hope you wont have to.
thanks johnny

[Hognose]

so ... question, dont you think the teetering rotor is a factor in mast bumping? ...your opinion, are 3 bladed rotors safer ?

Victor, and all --

Yes, a teetering rotor is prone to mast bumping as a consequence of its design, if you put negative G on it or let the RRPM drop below a safe level (which can be a consequence of negative G).

Three-bladed rotors have different issues. For one thing, they are more complex. Other things being equal, a simple system will be safer than a complex one. For another, a normal three (or more) bladed rotor is prone to ground resonance, not a factor with a teetering rotor system. A ground resonance accident is usually not fatal, but it can be, and it destroys or substantially damages the aircraft.

i m also amazed that most of rotors are not weighted at the blade tip (i mean like in a helico one) .. the inertia sould be a factor of safety (at least during seconds), but most of people dont mind.

Remember: a helicopter is a different category of aircraft! The blade weights are required there because for a helicopter autorotation is unnatural and an emergency procedure. The rotors in the helicopter are normally powered. When the power stops, the amount of time the pilot has to get on the ball and initiate autorotation is a function of the inertia in the rotor system. With a big Bell or Sikorsky, he has some time to react. With a low-inertia rotor like a Robinson R-22 or, God forbid, a Mini-500, the pilot has very little time indeed.

Some gyros do have tip weights (the old Bensens had them nearer midspan, at the leading edge, and they also balanced the wooden rotors chordwise, IIRC; and the CarterCopter Technology Demonstrator has them, for reasons I will mention in a minute). But in a gyro inertia isn't always a good thing. Remember Newton's laws, all inertia means is that"an object in motion tends to remain in motion, right?" But what about an object at rest? In that case -- like, when you go to prerotate to takeoff RRPM -- inertia is not your friend.

Unlike a helicopter, a gyro only transitions to autorotative flight while on the ground!

If you had a very light rotor system, then it would be prone to very rapid RRPM decay. Can we name a gyro with a very, very light rotor system? Sure we can! The CarterCopter with its carbon fibre rotor assembly. Hence, the CCTD's tip weights of depleted uranium.

i plan to build my own tank that will be semi-rigid with an interior rubber skin weaved with fiberglass roving, the tank will be filled with special foam balls

Yeah, that is a good concept, similar to the fuel cells in racing cars as you say. There is a lot to learn from the other motor sports as well as from the military studies I cited before. But remember, there is no need to save yourself from the fire until you have saved yourself from deceleration trauma, unless you wish to be a pretty corpse.

cheers

-=K=-

[Dean_Dolph]

........ But remember, there is no need to save yourself from the fire until you have saved yourself from deceleration trauma, unless you wish to be a pretty corpse.

cheers

-=K=-I had an opportunity to visit with Jay Carter Sr. at Mentone '04. I don't know the particulars of the Carter strut that Larry Neal is using but I mentioned to Mr. Carter that if it could be scaled to use with Oregon Aero's "High-G Safety Seat" technology http://www.oregonaero.com/new.htm in a gyro seat, then it had the potential to prevent serious back injury. But, even if it is possible to wed the two where there wasn't a large weight penalty, we probably couldn't afford it. And then it would probably only help in a rare event like when Doug O'Connor had the rudder lock during a falling leaf spiral during a air show demo. He suffered several compressed vertebrae when the gyro landed just about as flat as possible. Horizontal deceleration is a whole different story.

[donshoebridge]

The BRS has a patented slider which corrects for the speed of the aircraft on deployment.

Kevin,

Something you mentioned has been bothering me. The slider that BRS has patented is no different than the reefing panel on a square chute. The theory of keeping the chute in a semi-reefed condition isn't really a new idea seeing how it's almost the same for all chute deployments, except for maybe when a spreader is utilized. Even the main chute on an ejection seat uses a device that holds the chute closed - reefing line.

Having written patents myself and knowing what some of the requirements are, the BRS patent seems really thin.

[darrellwittke]

I have difficulty believing the fall rate of a human body (dense-60% H20) in a loose cannonball position is the same as an inverted RAF with its fuselage and rotor blades hanging in the relative wind.

I do know Chuck B's calculations regarding light gyroplanes but I wonder if the extra area of the RAF makes a large difference, of course with the extra weight maybe it all equals out again. I would like to see one of the technical experts (IE. Raghu, Chuck B., Doug Riley, Udi, etc.) revisit the calculations and formulas if this catches their eye.

In my practical experience, I can increase my speed dramatically in comparison to belly flyers either by standing up in a jesus track or assuming a cannonball position (although rotation will occur, usually slow.) I still believe there would be fairly good separation from a PIO'd RAF and a loose cannonballed pilot. Just my intuitive feeling from my experience.

I do believe it would be possible for some pilots to accomplish the task of bailing out of the RAF also. All that they have to do (in that tiny cockpit) is unbuckle and get out like their life depends on it, because it does. Motivational and simple. The loose cannonball is more an instinctual reaction (most new skydiving students do it) by the pilot than consciously applied thought. The pilot would have to be a fair to good skydiver to apply other methods such as tracking or ballooning to acheive separation, prohibitively expensive and time consuming for most of us.

I still do promote the static line BASE rig as the most sensible, practical and safest solution if you must have a parachute system for safety on your gyro.
At least until I see the mathematics showing the relative fall rates of the two bodies to be the same.

[donshoebridge]

To a point, I would have to agree that a jumping from a falling gyro would be an exercise in futility. But, I also think that the sooner you can get away from the gyro (by jumping), the less vertical speed the gyro will have. Never mind... Even this line of logic is too much for me. Forget I typed this. :o

I'm not sure if we're all in agreement or not about the attitude of the failed gyro, but if inverted is the general consensus, then maybe a gyro with a downward firing ejection seat would be a good option. For a time, the F-104 had such a seat. The lower side of the aircraft was hinged and airflow would pull the floor off of the jet when the time came to bail out. A gun style catapult would blow the seat/man mass out of the aircraft. Anyone like to try riding this out? Not me!

[Udi]

Darrell - as I am sure you know, it takes very little time to travel say, 500 ft, in free fall. If we neglect air drag, which is a reasonable assumption for such a short fall, it would take about 5.5 seconds to fall from 500 ft. Next time you have a chance, try to unbuckle and get out of an RAF 2000 in less than 5 seconds. If you consider the time it would take you to get away from the falling gyro and at least 2 seconds to open the chute... This kind of recovery may be feasible from an altitude of 5000 or more feet, and only if the rotors don't chop you to pieces on the way out...

But I have another suggestion.

How about designing a spring-loaded upper part of the mast, connected to the lower part of the mast with one or more pins? The mast, with the rotor, would depart the gyro, letting the chute open up....

Nahh... just build a safe gyro and forget about needing a chute.

Udi

[rehler]

Udi, this is a very good idea - chute open only if and AFTER the rotor departs.

Then an accidental deployment would be safe - just a parachute ride to the ground with no chance of the chute getting tangled in the rotor and killing the pilot.

However, the upper part of the mast, both push rods, prerotator, rotor tach wires, etc. would all have to release at the same time - not a simple problem.

[donshoebridge]

We might be on to something here!

Let's look at the F-111 crew esacpe module. It is a 3000 pound "chunk" of the aircraft that seperates from the rest of the plane. Several thing must occur prior to module/aircraft seperation; all of the flight controls and electrical wires are cut using a balistic guillotine. A similar device is also used on the F-4 (Martin Baker) seat for cutting the drouge slug from the pilot-chute in the event that the Barostatic Lock Initator doesn't fire and the pilot must pull the Emergency Restraint Release Handle to seperate from the seat. There's a mouth full. :p

Like that of the F-16 canopy system, a variation of an explosive bolt can detatch the upper half of the mast from the rest of the gyro. Explosive bolts could also be used to detach the push/pull tubes. The pre-rotator could be fitted with a balistic guillotine. Using an RAF as or model, the BRS could then be mounted on the back side of the cabin and aimed straight up. All of the balistic components could be tied together through a single mechanically fired initiator located in the cockpit. Between the BRS and the other explosive components would a .3 second delay, gas fired initiator.

The sequence would be; 1) pull initiation handle, 2) gas from the cockpit mounted initiator would fire the explosive bolts, the guillotine, and the .3 sec delay initator, 3) the rotor head and mast assembly would depart the aircraft, 4) after .3 sec delay, the BRS rocket would fire.

Now let's talk about the liability of the rotor blades killing someone on the ground!

[gyroguy]

Air command had one fitted to a 2 seat tandem. They called it a GRS(Gyro Recovery System). If fired the chute down and back with its tether connected to the keel and up to the mast. From the top of the mast it was routed down to the right main landing gear strut to a "temporary" attach point. When fired it automatically shut down the engine.

The deployment sequence as I understood it was that when fired, the gyro would purposely be tumbled forward with a right yaw/left roll from the chute drag being applied well below and to the right of the center of gravity. This would reverse the flow thru the rotors and rapidly decelerate them. In theory, this would also keep the rotors away from the chute and tether. It would also leave the gyro hanging upside down from a point near it's right main wheel:). This attachment point was not the primary point however and the cable was I believe zip-tied up the landing gear to the main point on top of the mast. The attach point on the right main gear had a remote release, that after the rotor had slowed(and before hitting the ground), the pilot could pull a second handle and release that attach point. Gravity would then rip the zip-ties and the gyro would right itself and hang fom the main mast for final touchdown.

Sounds like a heck of a ride. To my knowledge it has not been tested...

You've described it exactly right, Ron.

Several posts have said that as long as the rotor blades are working, they'd rather ride the ship down. Agree on that! And so did the designer of the GRS (Gyro Recovery System). It would only be used in a situation where the decay of rotor rpm (usually from negative Gs) cause the machine to tumble nose down and stop or shed the rotor blades. This is a non-recoverable situation--EXCEPT (maybe) with the ballistic parachute. And it has not been tested--first person to NEED it will be the testee.

If you're interested in more info or buying a GPS, contact Larry Neal.

Larry Neal
P. O. Box 927
Boyd TX 76023
e-mail: <thebutterfly612@earthlink.net>
940-627-9887 cell phone

[donshoebridge]

There is a growing presents of people that believe that "going negative" will not cause an appreciable decay in rotor RPM. In fact, some say that going negative will actually cause the rotor RPM to increase. I'm under the impression that the biggest problem isn't a decay in rotor RPM, but PIO's and PPO's caused generally by an unstable aircraft, where the pilot lacks adequate training and/or experience. If rotor RPM is the real issue, then I think it would make a lot more sense to partially power the rotor (reference Dick DeGraw). The idea of deploying a chute from an out-of-control gyro that is tumbling toward earth does not sound like a survivable situation to me. There are other features, systems and practices that can be done as preventative measures so that a chute is not necessary. But that's just me.

[Victor Duarte]

I think it would make a lot more sense to partially power the rotor (reference Dick DeGraw.

i think so ... have you progressed on your tip jet pre rotator ? could be a good emergency feature.. in addition, just an hair-brained idea : a perox tank could be used as an emergency device to re-gain rotor rpm..

[mceagle]

"There are other features, systems and practices that can be done as preventative measures so that a chute is not necessary"

Well said Don.

Personally, I cannot think of one accident where a parachute would have saved the pilot. Conversly, most accidents could have been avoided by better training and education, and safer aircraft.
A parachute inadvertantly deployed could in fact cause a fatality. (It does happen).
We would be far better off concentrating on improving the safety of what we already have. That in itself is a big enough battle.

[birdy]

I reckon that even if the chute did work and you were float'n back to earth,you would have died from a hart attack caused by all them explosions.

[donshoebridge]

I reckon that even if the chute did work and you were float'n back to earth,you would have died from a hart attack caused by all them explosions.

David,

If you're referring to the sequence of events that I posted earlier, the only large noises would be the explosive bolts and the rocket. Everything else is contained within high pressure hydraulic hoses. Most all of the sound is contained. I'd be more concerned about hearing the sound of a chute that didn't open, trailing above/behind me, and/or the sound of an engine at full power cutting through the air as if I were doing an Lumpchavach (spelling?).

[donshoebridge]

i think so ... have you progressed on your tip jet pre rotator ? could be a good emergency feature.. in addition, just an hair-brained idea : a perox tank could be used as an emergency device to re-gain rotor rpm..

I've always wondered how well a pair of model rocket engines would work as either a pre-rotator, or as a means of putting energy into the rotor system during a flair or other emergency situation. Medium sized rocket engines aren't to difficult to come by. However, using them all the time as a pre-rotation device would get expensive.

[darrellwittke]

Although Udi calculated approximately 5.5 seconds from 500 feet, I like to look at the use of my emergency parachute scheme from a different perspective. The way I see it, I've got the rest of my life.

With the safety harness I use (an old MC-1 harness hardware) one swift punch to the middle of the chest releases everything. Then it is a matter of getting (kicking off) out of the gyroplane. No small task if the doors are on, but quickly accomplished if the doors are off that small RAF cabin. I would guess you could accomplish that in about one second, slap your chest and reach outside the door and pull and kick your body into the air. I think this would be possible even with a rotating RAF.

(I am well aware how impossible it is to get out of a falling spinning airplane. There is a celebrated incident in smokejumper history of an aircraft (I think a beechcraft that looked like a queen air but with two rudders on the end of the horizontal) that stalled when some jumpers moved back to the open door. This was at 10000 ft and although the jumpers were only a few feet from the door not one could make it out! It sure wasn't for lack of trying though, they were just pinned to the ceiling. The plane finally recovered at 800-1000 feet.)

Then comes the sticky point. You have to travel far enough away from the bunted and falling RAF to string out your static line which strings out your parachute. (I am unsure if the two bodies would fall at disparate rates so as to acheive a timely opening (the sticky point), of course, you could always open the parachute yourself if the static line hasn't yet.)

Again, deployment can be slider down (or no slider) with an opening within 60 feet but a higher chance of a malfunction, or with a slider and openings within 120 to 200 feet. The best may be a mesh slider which helps the malfunction rate but doesn't slow things up to much, 60-100 feet deployment or about 1 second. (The manufacturer will know what's best, after the airspeed and time needed is known.)

So what does that give us? I count 1 second for getting out and 1 second for deployment. That leaves three seconds to dawdle, hang out, admire the scenery and prepare for landing. Luxury.

Most importantly, this is achievable right now, by anyone. We all agree parachutes are hardly necesary on a properly designed gyroplane, it being one of the safest forms of flight. But if somebody in an unmodified RAF wants that extra insurance (slim though it may be) that they have one more gasp at life after bunting their gyro, they could call one of the manufacturers and describe what I've mentioned here and I bet those sewing pro's could do it. I bet it wouldn't cost more than $3500 dollars.

You guys can have your blue sky dreaming with hundreds of thousands of dollars of development costs which I will bet my life savings will never be manufactured and sold. From my limited experience of flying gyro's and skydiving I will take my static line BASE chute idea. (I wish someone would call the BASE chute manufacturers and find out the real skinny or I may have to do it myself!) I think this is a good idea for unmodified RAF's (or any other improperly designed gyro) especially if they cruise around at 700 to 1000 feet.

My two cents anyways, and thank you everybody for your idea's and interest. (It's entertaining to me, even if we're beating a dead horse.) Sincerely darrellwittke

[birdy]

There's one little snag there thou Darrell,if you jumped out of a spinning machine,you will be spinning too.I'd gess it'd take a few hundred feet to stop yourself from spinning,otherwise you'll git wound up in your chute strings. :(
This probably wouldn't be such a bad thing tho,coz your neck would snap as the chute opened and you'd land dead,and wouldn't have to put up with all the abuse and ridicule from other gyronaughts as to how you stuffed up in the first place. ;) :D

[donshoebridge]

Most importantly, this is achievable right now, by anyone. We all agree parachutes are hardly necesary on a properly designed gyroplane, it being one of the safest forms of flight. But if somebody in an unmodified RAF wants that extra insurance (slim though it may be) that they have one more gasp at life after bunting their gyro, they could call one of the manufacturers and describe what I've mentioned here and I bet those sewing pro's could do it. I bet it wouldn't cost more than $3500 dollars.

For about the same amount of money, I could buy a horizontal stab. Or for less money, I could build my own.

[darrellwittke]

And that is the proper way to go. Some owners simply refuse to do this however, for some reason I don't understand. The BASE chute static line idea may be more palatable to them, for whatever reason. I promote the BASE chute static line idea as the most easily accomplished practical solution to parachutes on a gyroplane.

We are in agreement, however, there is no need for parachutes on a properly designed gyroplane. We are simply bantering for education and entertainment and the sake of argument. Nothing wrong with that.

Birdy, I don't think an RAF spins that much after a bunt. The accident reports with eyewitness accounts state (to my dim recollection) most of the time the gyro had a loud bang like an explosion or something and then fell to earth upside down (inverted.)

Breaking your neck is a possibility on chute opening. I did 11 freefall camera helmet skydives and the parachute (Sabre 190) I was using had a predilection for extremely hard openings every so often. I felt like I had broke my neck on a couple openings, with resultant soreness lasting days.

Nonetheless, You can sometimes survive a broken neck, sometimes without paralysis, if the break or fracture either is lower or does not cause spinal cord compression or damage.

On another note, I have thought of another deployment method that combines the best of rocket motors, exploding bolts and BASE chutes.

The pilot wears a sensor high up on his leg, when the gyro inverts and the urine flows down his leg the circuit is completed, firing a rocket motor that drags him out sideways and deploying the BASE chute. If the chute doesn't open, then the sensor strapped to his arse fires an airbag just before impact
that is filled with water. Although the pilot doesn't actually survive it does clean him up and allow a decent funeral without anybody knowing of his indiscretions. Oh, and the explosive bolts fire off the rotor if they sense urine while the gyro is in an upright position and start the whole sequence. After all, we don't want urinary incontinence associated with our beloved gyrocopters! :)

[gyroguy]

So far, a good discussion!

It's pretty obvious from the posts that the only time to try to use a parachute is when the gyro is completely out of control, the rotor blades are trash, and you're falling to your death.

At such a time, I'd rather have a parachute and try it, than not to have a parachute.

When I flew an ultralight fixed-wing, I had a Jim Handbury hand-deploy chute. The parachute deployment procedure was -- 1, grab parachute out of bag, 2, look for unobstructed hole to toss it through, 3, toss it hard, 4, pray it opens.

Never had to use the chute, but a buddy lost elevator control and popped his BRS, landed in the only tree on the field. No gripes there, better in a tree than in a box.

Point is, no matter how well an aircraft is designed, as long as it has moving parts there's the potential for something to go catastropically wrong. In such an instance, when death is certain, a parachute might save your life.

FYI, when I talked with Ken Brock about this, he said the key was training. If we trained not to get into situations that would kill us, we'd never get into those situations. We'd never need a parachute because we'd never do anything that dumb.

I still see PIOs, PPOs, and accidents of unknown causes where a gyro tumbles to the ground. How come, guys? Why wouldn't a parachute help as a last resort?

[nitchgyro]

The one accident I can remember that a BRS would have helped was the one in El Mirage 3 or 4 years ago. From what I remember being discussed on the old forum, the guy was around 1000ft AGL doing a vertical descent with power, aft stick, and lots of rudder. He stalled his blades and came down out of control. There would have been plenty of time for him to activate a BRS and have it deploy in plenty of time.

At least if you have the chute, you have one last chance to save your bacon.

[GyroRon]

Lance, how did he stall his blades in a vertical descent? I'd like more details cause I like to do verticals all the time and sometimes I do rudder turns while falling.

[skyguynca]

Well only having a few thousand skydives, doing over 5000 tandems and only a few hundred BASE jumps.........a few hundred hours in gyros and a couple of thousand in other aircraft.............using anything but a BRS would be insane. No matter how fast it opens or what position your body is in during deployment the main fact is that the only time to use it is in a catastrophic failure of the machine, then you would be hard pressed to exit the vehicle anyway.......has anyone ever seen a rotorcraft loose a blade in flight??? I have and the tumbling that ensues it wild to say the least, even in a open cockpit the speed at which it happens is incredible. A BRS is not a bad thing, there really has not been a accidental or should I say a failure of the equipment that cause a premature launch, in a really long time. You have to pull the handle and in a situation that causes the aircraft to start dissassembling itself and tumbling what can it hurt to fire the BRS off. So far there has been a save as low as 150 feet with a BRS in a ultralight who's wings folded right after take off, the rocket fired thru the wing and pulled the parachute right along with it and the guy lived, broken legs but alive.


Just my 2cents.

[darrellwittke]

Good deal skyguy, or should I say skygod, you certainly have my respect with your listed experience. And I don't mean that derisively.

Now, how about the spinning of the gyro you saw lose that blade? What was it, where was it? What flight conditions surrounded it? Was it PPO'd?

I have never seen a gyro PPO, as I stated in an above post, the only footage I have seen on video is from Farnsworth? air show where the gyro inverted and fell to the ground (not rotating.) I seem to remember several accident reports where the eyewitnesses state the same thing.

So we need to identify if rotation typically occurs and continues in a PPO and if the rotors continue spinning, if so my BASE static line idea is dead.

Also, since you actually have experience BASE jumping (I don't) how long do you estimate for deployment? Do the zip toggles take much time to release in a lineover malfunction? How long (in feet fallen) do you think it would take to get out of an RAF cabin that is inverted and falling if you have a one punch release harness and no doors on (with rotors stopped) and deploy the BASE chute?

Sincere questions, I know I'm trying to rationalize my system too hard, any input you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. darrellwittke

[skyguynca]

It was several years ago and it was a PPO right after takeoff, about 800ft. One rotorblade hit the engine/tail and came apart. The gyro instantly rolled on two different axis and continued this tumble until impact with the ground. The time from the PPO onset to impact was about 8 to 9 seconds, a BRS deploys normally in 1 to 2 seconds with parachute opening within 5 from deployment activation. I think he might have lived if a BRS was installed. Don't get me wrong, it should only be used in a catastrophic situation, not just because your engine quit. I have a cypress in my skydiving gear, mainly because it is required, but I never rely on it, I rely on my training to get me through the emergency just as a pilot should rely on his training. If reply to the zoo toggles or any of the variations on that, as long as you do not have them routed through your slider, the clearing of a simple line over is instantainous, but remember when flairing with rear risers, it only takes alittle, too much and the canopy colapses and you crash in hard.

[Victor Duarte]

David, thanks a lot for your valuable experience.. respect for you.
On your opinion is a BRS (or other brand) justified?
i launched this thread to have a clear idea, but there are two poles... one think it s not worth, the other doesnt know really as no tests has been done (so do i).
thank you.

[rehler]

Please keep in mind that no one is against a BRS in any aircraft without a spinning rotor. Here we are talking about a gyro and no one is against using one on a gyro when it is needed. What everyone should be concerned with is if it will kill the pilot if it accidently goes off.

Since nothing is perfect and accidents happen, it seems that a BRS could accidently go off and if it ever did the pilot would probably be killled. They have gone off at the wrong time in ultralights, but that is not a serious problem - not even worth reporting.

It therefore seems to me that a BRS in a gyro might kill more gyro pilots than it would save. Perhaps something like 1 save and 2 kills every 4 or 5 years.

[Victor Duarte]

ken, you seem to not trust BRS parachutes, in witch circumstance do you think a brs should kill accidentally, a failure or malfunction ? on my mind on a desperate situation it can only be better or uselesss..
thank you

[Johnny Skoch]

Yes there have been uncommanded deployments of BRS devices though rare. Chutes don't just activate. Bridles and related hardware have become entangled in props dragging chutes out of the cannister, Pilots have snagged deployment handles on clothing and have fired them. BUT, I have not heard of any BRS Series 5 just firing. The mechanism is not a "hair trigger" rather cocking and firing are done together on the deployment pull. A minimum of 25 to 30 lb's pull is needed to deploy.

Generaly all uncommanded deployments come down to installation and care of mounting and most importantly mounting and routing of the firing handle AND the cable. Since the cables sleeve can fire if pulled on, care must be used in its routing on the Airframe.

~johnny

[Victor Duarte]

thanks a lot Johnny, so, according to ken , there is a risk of killing instead of saving. maybe in a tractive design the mount would be less problematic.

[skyguynca]

Well put Johnny. If installed properly a BRS is safe, if proper preflights are done and it and its hardware and cables are checked you should be fine with a proper installation and heaven forbid if for some reason your rotorsystem desides to leave it is there for use and atleast now your odds have gone from 0 to 50/50 or better. It all really comes down to do a good and proper installation and checking it everytime you fly I really don't believe if you do it right that it is dangerous, it is like everything we do when we fly, if you take a short cut be prepared to pay for it somewhere down the road. I am actually designing a coaxial helicopter now, and have started building its frame. It will have a BRS just incase things go wrong and parts start running into each other.

[Victor Duarte]

david, you re designing a coax ? really interesting ! any link where we can see your work please ? if you dont mind naturally..
thank you.

[rehler]

Johnny, you said: "Yes there have been uncommanded deployments of BRS devices though rare". This is my concern. Which is the most rare - uncommanded deployment that would kill the pilot or the BRS saving a life in a gyro. I am afraid that the odds are they would kill more than they would save.

I consider myself a safe and conservative pilot and would not fly a gyro with a BRS - just too unsafe for me. And I really fear others having one on their gyro, as I don't want them to die trying to be safe! On the other hand I would pay the cost to have one on an ultralight fixed wing plane, where there is no drawback - all positive - added safety.

[skyguynca]

The uncommanded deployments he is talking about are the ones where cabling, bridles, or other pieces of the BRS got tangled up or caught up in moving parts or when the cable housing get pulled on the rocket launcher, in all those instances that is a installation error or a bad preflight where something has come loose. That is not the fault of the equipment, it is operator error. They are as safe as the machines we build and fly. I really and truely don't see a BRS as a hazard unless it is to much work to install properly or to much work to add to your preflight, then in that case you probably are taking to many short cuts anyway.

[skyguynca]

In response for links or pics of the coaxial, sorry it is staying under wraps until the day it flies.....but you can check out everything that I built that is still on my website www.skyguynca.com

[Dean_Dolph]

Hey, ya'll, I got a suggestion. Why don't those of you that favor installing a BRS on a gyro put one on yours. And the rest that believe a well designed, well constructed and maintained gyro is as safe as a chute, can fly what they brung. Whatcha think! Sound like a plan?

You guys that install a chute let us know what you did. And if you ever use it then I'm sure all of us will hear about it.

[gyroguy]

Why don't those of you that favor installing a BRS on a gyro put one on yours. And the rest that believe a well designed, well constructed and maintained gyro is as safe as a chute, can fly what they brung. Sound like a plan? You guys that install a chute let us know what you did. And if you ever use it then I'm sure all of us will hear about it.

Right on, Dean! That is the only solution -- free choice!

But we're all better-than-average pilots, right? A fatal gyro accident will never happen to us, right? I think we act as if we actually believe this. At least, the accident reports I've read seem to indicate it.

Trouble is, well designed, well constructed, and well-maintained gyros still get into PIO, PPO, neg-G, and crash from "unknown" causes. All of us hear about it. Then we say "Tsk, tsk, too bad that happened to him!" And we go out and fly another day.

I have two points to make.

First, we are all horribly mortal. We can crash even well designed, well constructed, and well-maintained gyros. The crash can kill us.

Second, there are risks associated with flying. It is our personal responsibility to manage the risks. If there's a way to decrease the risks, with an emergency parachute for example, we should at least consider it.

I have to admit I haven't put a BRS chute on my gyro... so much for putting my money where my mouth is. (Anyone who wants to reply "You're stupid, Kerry Cartier!" is welcome.)

Bottom line, flying gyros is a lot of fun. My focus in these comments is aimed at saving lives, so we can more safely go fly another day!

This will be my last post in this thread... I've drained the brain and said it all.

[Victor Duarte]

thanks david, good luck in your venture.

[Udi]

...Trouble is, well designed, well constructed, and well-maintained gyros still get into PIO, PPO, neg-G, and crash from "unknown" causes. All of us hear about it. Then we say "Tsk, tsk, too bad that happened to him!" And we go out and fly another day...

Sorry, Kerry, but this statement is untrue. A well-designed, well-constructed gyro will not PIO and will not PPO. By definition, gyros that are properly damped, just like any other aircraft, will not PIO. Also by definition, gyros with the engine thrust line passing thru the CG cannot, and will not, PPO. The "power" cannot push them over because it goes right thru the center of gravity.

You post is somewhat fatalistic. I don’t see any reason why a gyroplane pilot, who is well trained and flies a well-designed and well-maintained gyroplane, should expect a lower safety margin than any other GA pilot. Hundreds of thousands of GA pilots are flying happily every day with a good safety record. I don’t see any reason why we should expect any less from ourselves. I believe every accident has a reason and it usually boils down to training, design, or maintenance.

Udi

[donshoebridge]

Unintended Deployments! What the Hell! Who designed that POS?!?!? The ejection handles on any ejection seat require a force in the range of about 40 pounds. This eliminates accidental firings. In an emergency, the pilot is so pumped up that he will sometimes break the handles off during ejection. It sounds like the BRS has a serious design flaw!

[quadrirotor]

From:
http://www.autogire.com

[birdy]

Onya Andre,ejecting from a perfectly healthy gyro.

If you PPO,PIO or go over any other way,you'll be dead before you git a chance to rip the handle.

Your right Kerry,we can kill ourselves in any gyro we want to.
The gyro won't kill us,we kill us.Hell,it won't even fly without us.
BTW,I have concidered a chute,and couldn't think of any situation where it would be of benifit.[but that's just me]

Besides die'n on the nest,what other,better way is there to go meet the maker.

[Cobra Doc]

FYI; we tested a quick deployment parachute recovery system on a Cobra at Ft. Campbell in the late Seventies. The pilot popped the chute at 100' agl and safely landed. Unfortunately it didn't do the chase Cobra a darn bit of good when a released blade from the test aircraft got mixed up in his blades. The test was successful, but we still lost two pilots. Another concept that was discarded was to have the blades secured by cables so they wouldn't fly off into the wild blue when blown away. One look at the concept and all the pilots left, muttering something about blades in cockpits being less than an ideal situation. It's odd that the engineer that came up with that idea wouldn't try it either. :)

[Victor Duarte]

cobra doc, regardless of the loss of the 2 pilots, sorry for that, the good point is that you re the first here, to state that a recov chute was successfully tested on a chopper !
would you mind giving some details about how it was mounted, the deployment etc and what is your opinion about that kind of device on a UL chopper or a gyro..
thank you in advance

[Cobra Doc]

Victor;
For the tests, it was mounted on top of the transmission/engine cowling with the riser straps bolted to the top of the transmission mounts which made for a level descent. The blades had explosive bolts to release them from the head. The chute itself was explosively deployed. I believe the parachute may still be classified because it has other applications, but it's not to hard to figure out how to deploy a parachute in time to save a helicopter at a 100' hover. All the pieces have been described in various posts in this thread, just not all at once. I heard there were other successful forward flight tests done before the hover test, but I never saw them. Our pilots pretty much had the same attitude most of the gyro pilots have displayed: If the blades are still there, fly it down. If the blades are gone, you don't have a lot of time to worry about it.
Another problem was that the US Army doesn't fly as high as 100'. (Also the reason given for cancelling out on the V-22, the wing/proprotor was bigger than the Army's combat flight envelope.) Parachute recovery on low-flying rotorcraft is a nice concept, but a bad idea. On the high fliers you still have the problem of what to do with the blades. I have enough sky-dives that landing face first even with an airframe around me sounds as bad as not having a recovery system. Tail first, now there is a useable idea. That could be made to work. (BTW: I walked away from three helicopter accidents with minor brusies. Two in Hueys and one in an OH-58. I don' need no stinkin' recovery system!!)

[Victor Duarte]

If the blades are still there, fly it down. If the blades are gone, you don't have a lot of time to worry about it.
well.. i guess a poll is not necesssary to keep this point of view...
thank you for your sharp explanations, lucky alive pilot ;)

[donshoebridge]

Cobra Doc,

Welcome aboard! Phoenix! I use to live in Phoenix right after I got out of the USAF in '88. I was stationed at Luke.

[Cobra Doc]

Thanks Don. (Should I salute, or did you work for a living, too?) If you find yourself in the Phoenix area or make it to Reno for the races, let me know and we'll swap lies. :D
Cody

[Victor Duarte]

hi gentlemen, you know me, and my mad ideas, hope some appreciate the distraction :D

another hairbrained idea...
first : i not certainly a chute specialist so i may look ridiculous, but i ll make a try...

what , sky divers, ejection specialists and other very valuable persons think of this idea, it s a basic draft about a mast mounted recov chute..

thank you

[Cobra Doc]

Victor, mount the chute pack under the tail and attach the risers to the nose of the aircraft. Since the only time you'll need it will be a PPO situation, you'll already be upside-down. Fire the chute out behind you and just ride out the rest of the flip, land tail first under canopy and let everything behind you absorb the landing impact!!
Cody

[Victor Duarte]

well Cody, it was just another skunk idea,
if you read back my posts, you ll see i agree with your proposition, firing from rear or side, hanging the nose and the tail being a crumple zone, you land on your back...
you saw the drawing on the other thread, i was just thinking in having the chute in the tail, hanging the central frame by the nose, the sudden flat-spin can be bearable i think,
thanks Cody

[donshoebridge]

Thanks Don. (Should I salute, or did you work for a living, too?) If you find yourself in the Phoenix area or make it to Reno for the races, let me know and we'll swap lies. :D
Cody

I worked for a living. Although, there were times that the BS degree that some of the pilots had sure didn't indicate any level of advanced intelligence. Made me wonder why anyone had to salute them. Example: Ret. Gen. Tony McPeak was the 12th Air Force commander when I was in. Now look what he's doing.

[donshoebridge]

I think the faked image that Andre posted would be the good idea. I'd rather be away from the gyro than risk fowling a chute in the gyro.

A few years ago there was talk about building a one-off 2-place where the person in the back seat could get out safely. The front seat would have dead weight, an R/C flight control system and data logging equipment. The idea was to test the gyro to destruction by performing a push-over, just to see what would happen and what the sequence of events were. Back to the gyro...

I started working on a split-keel gyro design where the back seat could be dropped out the bottom of the gyro by the occupant. This same idea could be done in an emergency except that you would need a catapult to push you out. The front seat could be the same way. This idea was a copy from the early F-104's that had a downward firing ejection seat. The difference here is that the gyro doesn't weigh 25,000 pounds, so in normal, when the seat become detached from the gyro, the gyro would automatically want to go away (up) from the seat/occupant. No, I'm not going to try it. :)

[Victor Duarte]

A few years ago there was talk about building a one-off 2-place where the person in the back seat could get out safely. The front seat would have dead weight, an R/C flight control system and data logging equipment. The idea was to test the gyro to destruction by performing a push-over, just to see what would happen and what the sequence of events were. Back to the gyro...

hi don, this idea could be easy to make up, if some manufacturer is ready to sacrify a gyro, but what a golden knowledge..

knowing your skills in ejection systems, i think you re not joking, but are you serious when you think in an eject seat in a gyro? perhaps an ejectable mast and a recov chute would be more "light" to do... just debating

thank you

[donshoebridge]

knowing your skills in ejection systems, i think you re not joking, but are you serious when you think in an eject seat in a gyro? perhaps an ejectable mast and a recov chute would be more "light" to do... just debating

No matter which system designed, there are going to be inherent problems. In normal flight with the rotor blades in-tact, jumping or ejecting from a gyro may have less risks than detaching the rotor head and blades, as Andre's image roughly shows, even though it's faked. Even ejecting downward from a properly functioning gyro would not be too difficult because the gyro would naturally want to go in the opposite direction of the seat simply because of the over abundance of lift generated by the rotor blades when the pilots weight is removed.

The biggest problem I see with some kind of a chute system is that in almost every accident/incident where some kind of a catastrophic event occurred, the gyro is tumbling and gyrating in every direction at once (as evident in the NTBS reports at the link that was provided earlier). In this case, the rotor blades have impacted the gyro usually the tail feathers and the prop and have to a certain degree broken up or have become wrapped up around the gyro.

There is a lot of energy in a set of spinning rotor blades and in the split second that the first blade slices through the tail feathers or tail boom, tremendous forces are applied to the top of the mast. When this happens, I don't know if there would be enough structural integrity left in the mast to insure that the chute wouldn't rip the upper half of the mast off the gyro altogether. Or if the shock of the tail strike wouldn't be transmitted to the mast mounted chute and damage the components necessary for ballistic deployment. It's possible that a safety device attached to the mast (above the engine mounts) may become non-functional simply because of the violent nature of a rotor/tail strike.

Bob Hoover (famous pilot type guy) once said that during a forced landing, you must maintain control of the aircraft. Basically, the landing becomes a controlled crash. Right now, IMHO, the only gyro that would stand a chance at satisfying Bob Hoovers advice would be the Little Wing. From a catastrophic event standpoint, such as loosing a rotor blade, the tail will be in trail. You may not have any stick control, but at least the nose is still pointed into the relative wind, greatly increasing the chances of a successful chute deployment.

[Victor Duarte]

hi don, right.. i didnt think about the consequences of the shock on the mast, that point may just be like you described. and under ejection makes sense the reaction between the 2 bodies spacing them more...

i just cant imagine the cost of such a device..dont have any idea..

BTW before speculations it could be nice to have an unmanned gyro to test PIO and neg G behaviours in order to have a "previsible " average behaviour..

doenst a manufacturer have a trash gyro for a 10 minutes flight ?

thank you don

[donshoebridge]

Victor,

I have a Yahoo group for my Hornet project. I've also found a group called the Ft. Wayne Free Cyclers. The way it works is like this. Let's say I have a chair I want to get ride of, but I don't want to throw it away. I make a posting on the group that I'm offering a chair (for free). Anyone interested is free to come and get it.

The exact same thing could be done for used gyro parts. I'm sure there are enough pieces of aircraft laying around the US to build a few gyros - a set of wheels here, a set of blades there, maybe an engine that needs rebuilding, etc. Same thing with the electronics and flight controls.

It may be possible to build an entire gyro, like a single seat Bensen, and not have a need for a pilot on-board. Using a few rate gyros from a R/C helicopter and a couple of AOA sensors, the gyro would be able to fly with very little control input from the ground. Basically what I saying is that we could come up with a analog flight computer/auto-pilot.

[Victor Duarte]

don i will have a visit to your group.

yes ! with the amount of trash parts, even an engine able to run 20 minutes is enough, and old prop, old blades, the better config for a bad flight :D

about controls, no problem just bring in a RC fan (my sister's BF is one) and, with a little adjustments, he l be able to set it up, when you see their remote control pads, i t all computed, with the same, you can fly a plane or a helico or run a car.

for power control on the gimbal, just set up 2 electric motors with a screw on the rods and it will work ...

the difficult is to find people involved in that, but once done, you will have a woldwide database... make available some public data for education and homebuilding, but sell the complete footage and why not some monitored data charts such as rotor rpm, g meter, altitude, prop rpm, spin moments in each axis, i m shure some manufacturers would be ready to pay for that..
hey don retrieve me 2 % for the idea :D :D

why dont you ask the PRA to help you, afte all , it s a safety concern, maybe some sponsors could help, and the pra could say "see : we are very involved in gyro safety"

what do you think.

thanks

[robertstodaro]

I've been gone awhile.

I don't really see a problem.

If you get runover at 2k ft. just fire the BRS which is routed thru the lower

keel aft, then leave and deploy your pilot rig which you've packed with a

BASE packed square. EASY (might take some training, but DropZones need

your money too) E.F.S.

[DennisFetters]

I think this is a good bit of video to reopen this thread with. Found it just posted on another thread. May open some eyes.

Take a look;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk-psmXzYCE

As I have said, many people in fixed wing aircraft have had their life saved by these devices, some not so much, being an airplane can brake in flight even when in perfect condition by pulling to many G's, while a gyro cannot.

[Victor Duarte]

dennis,
saying a BRS chute can kill you is just like saying an ejectable seat can kill you.... in fact, both can in case or malfunction of mishandling..
the question is : is there a chance that a BRS chute can save my ..life .

we had an accident, here, times ago, where a FUTURA was involved, not the fault of the machine, but the pilot that went into a steep climb and..oh , well you know what happened.. but this machine had a BRS and the pilot had enough time to fire it... but did he think in firing it? did he know how to ? no one knows but the persons that were there were saying "fire it ! come on ! fire it !!". i think a BRS could have saved him or, at least given him a chance to survive the crash.

i am just amazed that , among all kind of tests been performed on gyros, CLT,HTL,LTL, static, dynamic stability... no one found important enough to test such a device..just like if sailors had to learn to swim to survive without using a buoy because if you swim well enough, you won't need it.

[DennisFetters]

dennis,
saying a BRS chute can kill you is just like saying an ejectable seat can kill you.... in fact, both can in case or malfunction of mishandling..
the question is : is there a chance that a BRS chute can save my ..life .

we had an accident, here, times ago, where a FUTURA was involved, not the fault of the machine, but the pilot that went into a steep climb and..oh , well you know what happened.. but this machine had a BRS and the pilot had enough time to fire it... but did he think in firing it? did he know how to ? no one knows but the persons that were there were saying "fire it ! come on ! fire it !!". i think a BRS could have saved him or, at least given him a chance to survive the crash.

i am just amazed that , among all kind of tests been performed on gyros, CLT,HTL,LTL, static, dynamic stability... no one found important enough to test such a device..just like if sailors had to learn to swim to survive without using a buoy because if you swim well enough, you won't need it.

Victor, please read what I said and then watch the video again.

Thinking again, you're right. You should put one on your gyro. Sooner the better.

[Victor Duarte]

I think i will put one, in case.

my point is that persons seriously involved in gyro business should test a chute on a trash remotedly controled gyro to see if suvivability could be improved. some tested loops, rolls etc but to my knowledge, no chute was tested.

[DennisFetters]

I think i will put one, in case.

my point is that persons seriously involved in gyro business should test a chute on a trash remotedly controled gyro to see if suvivability could be improved. some tested loops, rolls etc but to my knowledge, no chute was tested.

We did look into it years ago, and found no need to go through with the thousands of dollars of expense and loss of an aircraft to see if the ballistic parachute would work on a gyro, because we already knew that it would work on a gyro in a controlled test condition.

The reason why we didn't go further with it was from the research we did first, and that research pointed to the fact that you had a much greater chance of accidental deployment of the parachute that would cause a crash, then being in a situation where you had a failure of a part in a gyro where a ballistic parachute would be needed, or the chance that you would be in a situation where it would work, being that 99% of the time you are low to the ground in a gyro.

Gyroplanes are not airplanes and don't suffer from the same reasons that an airplane can that will fail it in flight.

Sure, if every gyro ever made had a parachute, you would find a few cases where it saved someones life. The problem is that in our study, for every one person that had their life saved by a ballistic parachute on a gyro, you would have 3 that were deployed unnecessarily or accidentally. In the video, you can see the results.

[Victor Duarte]

Thanks for your reply Dennis, now i understand better.
Thank you

[WingsR4DaBirds]

Zeboo says, "i am just amazed that , among all kind of tests been performed on gyros, CLT,HTL,LTL, static, dynamic stability... no one found important enough to test such a device."

Me too. That is why I suggested such a test on the Mythbusters site. I think it would be a blast if they tested this myth with models first to determine the best place to attach the chute, then a full-scale RC test to try out that placement. Maybe some expert from this forum could help them out with the testing/RC flying. Could something like the Heli-chair be used to pilot a remote-controlled gyro? If someone has an old non-stable gyro they won't fly or don't feel is safe enough to be moral to sell on Ebay, maybe they could offer to donate it for the test (Mythbusters love it when people donate sacrifices--it could help them choose to do the test.) You can visit the post and show your support for doing the testing here
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/3091961309

[ruxpin76]

my $0.02...why not have a small canopy furled inside the rotor blades on a tether so that when the blades were released by explosive bolt, they would come down slowly, like model rocket recovery systems... Then a standard BRS could be fired from the remains of the gyro...

[Heli-Davidson]

Howdy,

Folks, I just looked at the calendar, and I was amazed to notice that the year is 2007. I was beginning to think it was 1927, based on the posts up to this point.

There is absolutely no reason to waste a perfectly-good gyro to test some of the _hare_-brained ideas put forth here ("hare" as in bunny wabbit, as in "The Tortoise and the Hare" fable). Just for the record, I have no problem with such pontifications, as long as everyone understands the repeatability requirement for testing scientific hypothoses, aka hare-brained ideas. That means you don't get to waste just one perfectly-good gyro, you really need to waste a lot of them to make sure that we don't waste too much bandwidth and brainwidth (e.g., time spent in forums on this sorta stuff, when we should be out building and flying :)).

Since it really is 2007, that means we are allowed to make use of the very devices on which we're tapping out these hare-brained ideas, aka "computers", to test these ideas. It's called modeling and simulation, and there is enough horsepower in even the cheapest computers sold in the last few years to more-than-adequately verify the hare-braininess of these pontifications. You don't even need to do anywhere near a full-up, photo-realistically-rendered simulation, as a simple 3-D vector animation will more than suffice (aka, a "stick-figure" simulation). Of course, it won't be nearly as sexy as your favorite first-person-shooter 3-D game or flight simulator program, but, hey, can you develop any software at all, much less one of those programs?). I haven't looked to see if there are any gyros modeled in the MS Flight Simulator or X-Plane (www.X-Plane.org) simulation programs (the latter is an FAA-approved PC Aviation Training Device - PC-ATD - that comes on eight double-layer DVD-ROMs - yes, DVD-ROMs, not CD-ROMs, because it has every airport and all of the terrain for Planet Earth on it - and runs on Windows, MacOS X, and Linux), but, those programs might be able to be used for our purposes, here. If there aren't any gyro models in the library of thousands of aircraft types/models, a file with about 300 parameters can be copied from another aircraft type/model and tweaked to mirror the performance and flight characteristics of whichever aircraft we want to simulate (including different engines, rotor blades, props, etc.). We may need to add some parachute deployment parameters, though!

Once enough virtual testing has been done, and modifications to the model have been tried to come to a conclusion one way or the other, if something looks feasible, then the next logical step would be to move to a scale model to make sure you haven't overlooked something in the real world. You would want to use a simple wind tunnel (if the Wright Brothers could build one circa 1900, so can you) and first verify that the chute deployment could be accomplished with the model at various "normal" attitudes (e.g., an approach to a landing). If you get that to work, then, the model needs to be able to rotate in a controlled way around whichever axes you want to test (probably starting with a rotation forward around the pitch axis to simulate a PPO/bunt).

If your idea makes it through the wind tunnel, then the next thing to try is an R/C model (well, some number of them, which will allow you to run out of money more slowly than investing in perfectly-good gyros to destroy). I'm actually kind of amazed that no one has built (and sold) R/C RAFs (with and without the mods) to demonstrate what PIO and PPO are all about. If the results of this testing still haven't convinced everyone one way or another, then you can start looking to steal some unsuspecting dupes' perfectly good gyros to toss into the air and make explode. Hey, actually, that does sound like fun!

Anyway, this is another set of possibilities to help further muddy the waters. Your mileage may vary. Do not spindle, fold, or mutilate. Batteries not included. Shipping and manhandling available for an extra charge. Order now for rush delivery.

All the Best,
Jim

[Vance]

Hello Dave,

In my experience with computer simulation, having all the questions is very important and if it is an interesting problem I have never had all the questions.

My experience with model testing is that there is often enough challenges of scale, finish and mass as to be misleading.

My experience with “it might have better results some of the time” is that it can be very expensive to test, there are a lot of questions I am not able to imagine that will be uncovered in testing and the answers I got from testing models will be misleading.

I have learned to not discount the value of imagination or over value simulations.

Thank you, Vance

[Hognose]

1. No desktop simulation simulates gyros "right," although X-Plane with its aerodynamic model comes closest. Just like no sim out of the box can really help teach taildragger flying. You just gotta get in and fly the sonofabastridge.

2. I love X-Plane (as a Mac/*nix guy what choice do I have?) but it is not certified as a PCATD on its own. People have certified it as a component of ATDs, however (same is true for MSFS. I keep a PC just for MSFS). You also need flight and avionics controls to make a true ATD (like the Elite, for instance).

3. Models are useful, BUT you have to be aware of how scale effect changes your data. If you don't have a well-founded understanding of how the reynolds numbers change with scale, models will mislead you (and you'll be able to convince yourself that bumblebees can't fly... after all, who you gonna believe, a half-understoon aerodynamics text or your lying eyes?).

An example of the seeming illogic of scale effect came during the TWA 800 investigation. The Explosion Dynamics Laboratory at Cal Tech built scale models of a 747 center wing fuel tank and blew them up in order to study various aspects of the blast. (They found that a fuel-air explosion reproduced the failure effects and sequence seen in the wreckage of the mishap aircraft). But in order to get a flame front to advance at the same rate, and fuel at the same flashpoint, on the ground and in small scale, they used another fuel for most of the tests -- one that had similar flash (evaporation) and flame-propagation characteristics at the lab's altitute as Jet A has at 13,000 MSL. Conspiracy buffs, who tend to be more innumerate and ascientific than the general run of the population, dismissed these tests as faked for that reason.

All the numbers and data from the tests are in the NTSB docket, and available from EDL directly... it's almost like a twist on the tale of Saint Thomas: "some have seen, and still don't believe."

4. Re your comments about drag in another thread... the difference in drag between the Sparrowhawk and the RAF is mostly a matter of flat plate drag (area drag). This is (and all the rest of parasitic drag) is a minor component of the total drag of a gyro. The principal source of drag is induced drag. That's why the only truly fast gyros have been slowed-rotor, winged compound rotorcraft, like the CCTD and Fairey Rotodyne.

The fastest helicopter in US military service probably has the largest flat plate area and certainly has the largest wetted area -- the CH-47 Chinook. They have to throttle back to keep from losing their Apache escorts.

That said, attention to detail on drag can save real gas and time. That's what Roy LoPresti's whole career was all about. Look at what Larry Neal does, fairing round tubing, sometime. Anything round in the wind kills you on drag, put a carbon teardrop around it and you can really make a dent in parasitic drag. But you'll never get Lancair speed out of a gyro -- you can just present a slightly slicker grand piano to the slipstream. You get a lot more out of fairing the tubular landing gear of an RV than a gyro.

cheers

-=K=-

[Janusz]

Head from czech gyro Skywalk 165.

More
http://www.proair.cz/en/
http://www.lz.pl/wiatrakowce.htm

Janusz

[Chuck Roberg]

Head from czech gyro Skywalk 165.

Interesting, but how is the cable to be kept from tangling in the rotorblades in case of a chute deployment.

I like the rotor brake and hydraulic prerotor.

Do you happen to know the price of this gyro?

[Janusz]

Price is 79000 Euro.

Janusz

[Chuck Roberg]

Price is 79000 Euro.

Wow! Thats a little over $106,000.

[Hognose]

There's nothing much on the function of the chute on the site. Nothing in English. The Czech says:

Záchranný padákový systém (padák umístěn uvnitř draku virníku) spolehlivě zmírní pád virníku i z malé výšky na přijatelnou rychlost.

I translate (on the fly and from memory, and I haven't spoken Czech daily in 20+ years...):

Emergency parachute system (parachute positioned inside the fuselage of the autogyro) reliably slows the descent of the gyro, even at low altitude at a reasonable speed.

(I cross-checked against the German text -- my German's pretty good and I use it more than my Czech -- and that says the same thing, except the German says from a HIGH altitude).

As near as I can figure out from the photo, it's a mechanical release -- much safer and more maintainable than explosive bolts. A mechanical release was used on the Fa 330 gyrokite used by the German Navy in WWII, and it worked. There are several ways to design such a release

cheers

-=K=-

[aerialvisitor]

This may sound stupid from an engineering standpoint, but I'm just trying to think out of the box here. It seems to me the only way a parachute would work on a gyroplane is if you stop the rotors before (or simultaneously with) deploying the chute. What would happen if spring loaded steel bars attached to the mast ascended vertically upward through the rotor disc when you pulled an emergency handle. Would they instantly stop the rotors where you could deploy the chute. Or is there so much energy in the rotors that it would rip the mast off and possibly your head with it? This is something that could easily be tested on the ground without risking a life. At any rate, stopping the rotors before deployment of the chute is the key. The question is, how quickly can you do it, and still deploy the chute in time.

[Passin' Thru]

Maybe I'm just the dumbest sumbich in the house, but if you have an intact rotor up there turning, under what conditions would you want to deploy a 'chute? :confused:
A serious control failure is all I can imagine.

[Heron]

Stopping the rotors in flight? Now that would be a fun task . . .
Best course of action, fund a test and see the real thing developing.
Heron

[brett s]

When the overwhelming majority of professionally designed military & commercial rotorcraft have decided against trying any sort of emergency airframe parachute system that's probably a clue as to their viability. The hazards of accidental deployment are high, and the odds of a successful deployment when you really do need one aren't so hot either.

Better off spending that money & weight on a properly engineered control & rotor system IMO.

[troed@aon.at]

Question: is there known ANY emergency-parachute system in helicopters somewhere in this world ?

If the answer is no: maybe there is no way to solve the problems deriving from a turning rotor above.

If yes, we should see if the system could be adapted to gyros.

[Heron]

The regular BRS system will work in helis and gyros, just have to be mounted accordingly.
It must point down and to the side, this way it will deploy away from rotor and turn the machine the other way around, upside down.
It will only be used in critical situations as a last resource, this way, its efficiency is very marginal if compared to fixed wings.
When all goes to hell, pop the chute and pray.
Heron

[deskjockey]

Holy thread revival (well, this discussion has been going on since 2004!).

donshoebridge mentionned here the F-111 with it's survival module which would be blasted out of the aircraft, and I believe that the Russians used a very similar system in one of their Kamov attach helos (Ka-50, IIRC) : the blades are blown away by explosive bolts in the rotor head, then the pilot is blasted out in an ejection seat.

On a gyro, this would enable a frame mounted 'chute to be deployed, but you still have the problem of the blades: As Cobra Doc mentionned, an ejected blade took out another aircraft resulting in losing the crew, and as for retaining the blades, there is a hell a lot of energy in them, and tossing them about would scare the heck out of me.

How about moving the complete rotor head 50 or 60 degrees backwards and firing a rocket assisted chute from there?

Then again, you might as well shoot it out of the nose or the tail and hope it does not foul as a BRS would be a last ditch, no control situation (I prefer the nose, as there would be more things behind me to cushion the fall, though this would only be of use in a PPO...

Too many variables, too many things to go wrong, it would be too easy to snag somthing.... Short of physically removing the rotor blades I cannot see any reliable way of deploying a BRS unless it's rotor head mounted - with a backup system mounted firing downwards if you fall inverted....

One way will work, 5 others to fail. Anyone got any better ideas since the last post?

Cheers !

[PW_Plack]

How much do you want your gyro to...

(1) Weigh?
(2) Cost?
(3) Be prone to additional failure modes?
(4) Require additional documentation and training?

For me, the ideal compromise is approached with a trim system located right at the rotorhead which could allow some level of control if a control rod failed, at least to the point of setting up a vertical descent.

I also find Ron Herron's three-tube redundant control tube arrangement to be a simple, elegant system.

If the rotor is turning, I'd prefer my odds riding it down, not creating a veg-a-matic.

[Vance]

When I climbed to 12,700 feet over Oceano in The Predator I thought about how long I would have to reflect on my circumstances if I caught fire or somehow the rotor system failed.

I have found that during a disquieting experience time seems to slow down.

I found the environment with the higher rotor speed and the lack of perceived movement felt completely foreign and this heightened my trepidation.

I find on my cross country flights I am frequently at an altitude where a fire or a rotor system failure would be a long experience.

In the mountains it is common for me to fly at 1,500 feet above the ground and we often find ourselves at 5,000 feet above the ground when we clear some ridge line.

I feel the two most likely reasons to need a parachute in a gyroplane are a fire or a rotor system failure.

In my opinion neither of these is well suited to a parachute on the aircraft.

I spent some time with a parachute rigger at the Copper State fly in and he felt that leaving the aircraft at 100 feet and 60 kts was enough for a successful jump. It seems they have something very similar to our height/velocity chart. He felt a jump at 500 feet and zero airspeed could be successfully managed by someone who lacked parachute skills.

In my opinion if the rotor is still going around the aircraft will be descending slowly enough to get well clear of it before deploying the parachute and if the rotor is the problem then it will probably be out of the way anyway.

I feel that in the event of an engine failure over a dense forest that a parachute option has an allure.

The rigger felt that an open aircraft without door or columns would be well suited to separation in an emergency.

Parachutes can be very compact now and the ones he had weighed around 18 pounds.

It is about 3 inches thick.

I tried it on and it was comfortable.

Ed and I have been thinking about wearing parachutes on our trip across the country in Mariah Gale and I feel it would be worthwhile on most of our flights. I usually am at least 500 feet above the ground.

The ones I was looking at cost around $2,400 each.

Thank you, Vance

[hillberg]

Explosive cutters & Ejection seats. Got to remove or stall the rotors to a stop ,then deploy the chute. Seen tests of chutes & rotors not good.

[phantom]

those of you who know me know that I sometimes come up with crazy ideas, so I will let all of you who don't know me hear my idea for a chute to work on a gyro, I think that the rotor should made of something like fiberglass pop corn, a foam core with an explosive additive and a skin and spar that turns into harmless dust.

Norm

[Timchick]

Here's a photo of a BRS mounted on an Air Command. Theoretically it would fire down and was anchored to a first anchor point to the axle on one side. Once it was deployed the gyro would be suspended from the axle. Once the blades stopped the pilot could release that anchor point with a cable and the gyro would then be suspended from an attachment point on the mast.

[AirScooter]

Another crazy idea, make an emergency rotor lock system, pins that fly up into slots or spring loaded plunger that when you pull the oh crap lever, the spring loaded plunger with brake material flys up and rubs the bottom of the prerotator disc stopping the rotor. Obviously it would need to be fail safe that it would never accidentally engage. So try to stop rotor, kill engine, blow the brs. It would be better than no brs. ???????

[Alan_Cheatham]

Another crazy idea, make an emergency rotor lock system, pins that fly up into slots or spring loaded plunger that when you pull the oh crap lever, the spring loaded plunger with brake material flys up and rubs the bottom of the prerotator disc stopping the rotor. Obviously it would need to be fail safe that it would never accidentally engage. So try to stop rotor, kill engine, blow the brs. It would be better than no brs. ???????

That is a crazy idea because if you suddenly stop a spinning rotor its energy is transfered into the airframe which then will begin to spin, that is if the rotor mast doesn't twist and snap off first.

.

[AirScooter]

That is a crazy idea because if you suddenly stop a spinning rotor its energy is transfered into the airframe which then will begin to spin, that is if the rotor mast doesn't twist and snap off first.

.

True, but a 40 percent chance of survival is still better than 10 percent or less. The numbers i used mean nothing, but you see my point.

[Vance]

I just looked at 79 fatal NTSB gyroplane accident reports since 1990 and I couldn’t find one where I felt a parachute would have helped.

It seems that most gyroplane accidents happen near to the ground and without a lot of warning.

In my opinion training would have helped in most of them.

In my opinion a more stable platform would have helped in many of them.

I feel there aren’t even that many mechanical problems.

I feel that flying a well designed and maintained gyroplane with proper and recurrent training would be a more appropriate path to making gyroplanes safer than trying to invent something that doesn’t address a primary safety issue.

I would like to have a personal parachute because I am flying outside the typical gyroplane envelope.

Thank you, Vance

[hillberg]

The gyroscopic actions on the rotor system when loaded or unloaded with the deployment of a chute is like a wild & pissed spider monkey grabing at the lines as the machine tumbles- 1950s was not a good time for helicopter test pilots. (Same guys that thought of using RATO on ARMY & NAVY test helicopters)

[Brent Drake]

Another crazy idea, make an emergency rotor lock system, pins that fly up into slots or spring loaded plunger that when you pull the oh crap lever, the spring loaded plunger with brake material flys up and rubs the bottom of the prerotator disc stopping the rotor. Obviously it would need to be fail safe that it would never accidentally engage. So try to stop rotor, kill engine, blow the brs. It would be better than no brs. ???????

I do know that on a Twinstarr with an electric prerotator, If you hit the rotator at full voltage, the entire gyroplane will spin 180 degrees before you can let off of the switch and the rotors will not have moved. So I can imagine if you have a sudden stoppage what would happen. I would not try it.

[StanFoster]

In my opinion.....If I wasnt comfortable flying without a parachute...I just would not fly period.

Stan

[Jazzenjohn]

I see 2 reasonable reasons to have a parachute on a gyro. If you're flying a gyro that is prone to bunting it might make some sense to have a chute. I believe that there may, just may, be a very small window of time after the blades have chopped off the tail and folded up that a parachute could be deployed and have a small chance of opening and arresting the fall. In that rare incidence, the blades are of no use and a fatal outcome is all but certain so it wouldn't hurt to throw something out there. There is also a possibility it could have been used for the one blade separation accident I know of as well. The second reason I can see for a chute is if it was used on an ultralight. There is a 24 pound credit for a chute and some weigh less than that, so you could possibly get a couple extra pounds for having one. That assumes that someone is actually concerned about making weight.
The huge downside of having one aboard is that if it accidentally deploys you have another possibly fatal thing that can go wrong. If someone put one on a gyro, it should have extra insurance that it can't go off unintended. Possibly a 2 or 3 step process to deploy for extra failsafe.

[Learjet]

I just looked at 79 fatal NTSB gyroplane accident reports since 1990 and I couldn’t find one where I felt a parachute would have helped.

Insightful post Vance

South African accident reports paint a similar picture.

Ground handling errors, pilot control input errors during landing, power-line wire strikes and behind-the-power-curve take-offs account for the majority of accidents. A BRS or parachute would be unlikely to have been deployable in these instances or changed the outcome.

That said, there are at least two instances that I know of where a BRS may well have saved lives:

Rotor separated from gyro on take-off at approx 500ft AGL with fatal consequences. Unauthorized modifications to the gyro had been made and the bearing sleeve had been assembled upside down.

Gyro flight into IMC apparently resulting in pilot disorientation and CFIT with fatal consequences.

[Rotor-Head]

I'd be more afraid of an accidental deployment... Otherwise your just adding weight and if the gyro is built right and maintained, you don't need one anyway...

I personally would feel better without one, rather than with..

[rfsolutions]

Check the fatalities in cirrus aircraft that have deployed chutes at low level. Check the decent rate of the load under canopy. If the passengers do not have a high g rated seat and suspension (like cirrus) to reduce the felt impact you're probably going to be seriously injured under canopy. I had a propeller failure at 400' AGL that ended in a crash. When replaying the event recorded on the gps it took 8 seconds from first hint of a problem to impact with the ground. I'm with Vance on this one. Flying rotorcraft low level (1000 agl) seriously limits the likelihood of a successful chute deployment to save occupants.

[PW_Plack]

Check the fatalities in cirrus aircraft that have deployed chutes at low level. Check the decent rate of the load under canopy...

The thing that jumps out at me after reading the Cirrus reports is the number of half-million-dollar airplanes that were destroyed needlessly because the 'chute appeared to embolden pilots to fly beyond their proficiency, or led them to quickly dismiss traditional means of regaining control of the aircraft.

There was a case last year involving an SR22 in which the pilot had an engine failure within easy gliding range of an airport, but chose pulling the chute over attempting a dead-stick landing on a runway.

Cirrus made an interesting design decision, betting the 'chute would give pilots a better chance at a non-fatal outcome than trying to keep them proficient at recovering from spins or inadvertent flight into IMC. That seems like a reasonable decision, but in hindsight, has the parachute really improved safety? Does it encourage careless people to buy a Cirrus just for the 'chute, skewing the statistics?

Does the 'chute's peace of mind contribute to letting skills get rusty?

The early Cirrus planes are now coming due for their first 10-year BRS replacements, which costs tens-of-thousands of dollars. How many have spent ten years thinking they didn't need to care about spin recovery, and will now be flying on expired equipment?

So...What are the parallels in the gyroplane world? More casual pre-flights and maintenance, taking bigger chances, and feeling immortal in general?

Properly designed, correctly assembled, well-maintained rotor and control systems don't have a history of failure, are effective even below 500', won't make me lazy, and don't have to be replaced every ten years. For me, the downsides of BRS on a gyro easily outweigh the advantages.

[rfsolutions]

Another thing to note, once you've pulled the handle there's no un-pulling it!

[pancho]

I have witnessed one Gyroplane accident. While I was not watching the aircraft until I heard a loud rapid POP POP which actually sounded like a shotgun, I watched as the rotors bent back in a huge motionless curve. Completely stopped. And the unfortunate occupant fell to his death. (About the most helpless feeling I've ever had.) The whole incident took less time than it took me to write the first sentence of this post.
I am completely convinced that a ballistic chute could have saved his life. But I'm not sure that he had enough time to take advantage of one if he had one to use.
I fly fixed wing experimental aircraft all the time and have not carried a chute with me for many years. I wont fly if I dont trust the machine. Gyros??? I've often considered the use of one due to what I saw. But due to cost and greater knowledge of Gyro design than we had then I'll probably forgo it. I'm a pretty conservative pilot anyway. I will not however fly without a good horizontal stab and near C/L thrust.

[Mark E]

CAPS deployments

As of January 30 2011, the CAPS has been activated 30 times with 50 survivors and 4 fatalities.[8]

list in Wiki -there do seem to be quite a few instances of mechanical failure where it has "earned it's keep".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems

[Steve McGowan]

Just for the record, there was a gyro that had a ballistic chute at the 1990 PRA Convention in Hearne Texas. I think it was Maxie Wildes'.



Maxie did have a BRS on his gyro and had never fired it or had the need.. Air Command did have a system,,, and NEVA Used it..I first saw it at Okechobee Fla in 1990..When I first met Maxie..

Maxie was the inventor of MANY different designs including the ORIGINAL Sparrow Hawk or I should say RAF Mod..

Just thought I'd drop that two cents in and say you already have the best
BRS conceived.. Its the ROTORS.. DUH!!

KEEP .M Spinnin!!

But what do I know...???

[Steve McGowan]

DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM these threads are OLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.. Especially when MJ was posting..

[SpyderMike]

There was a case last year involving an SR22 in which the pilot had an engine failure within easy gliding range of an airport, but chose pulling the chute over attempting a dead-stick landing on a runway.

Ouch, look at all the facts and you will see that more people have died trying to stretch an engine out landing when they could have pulled the chute. The chute works, period. This is supported by facts.

Cirrus made an interesting design decision, betting the 'chute would give pilots a better chance at a non-fatal outcome than trying to keep them proficient at recovering from spins or inadvertent flight into IMC. That seems like a reasonable decision, but in hindsight, has the parachute really improved safety? Does it encourage careless people to buy a Cirrus just for the 'chute, skewing the statistics?

Do you really think that is the reasoning behind the chute in the Cirrus Design, seriously? How about the fact that one of he Klapmeier brothers was involved in a mid-air and the fatality in that accident might have been saved by the chute? How about the fact that BRS have proven to save lives? How about the fact that real competent pilots still die in off airport and on airport (return to runway) attempts? How about the facts?

Does the 'chute's peace of mind contribute to letting skills get rusty?

It would depend on the individual, no? I would submit that if a chute directly results in rusty skills, then the skills would probably get rusty for that same pilot without a chute. That person is probably predisposed to complacency - it is not the chute's fault.

The early Cirrus planes are now coming due for their first 10-year BRS replacements, which costs tens-of-thousands of dollars. How many have spent ten years thinking they didn't need to care about spin recovery, and will now be flying on expired equipment?

Your numbers are wrong. The cost to repack is about $10k. Not a whole lot in aviation monetary units for a plane costing what a Cirrus does. Everyone that buys a Cirrus knows it needs a repack in time. Without the repack the plane is not airworthy. It is not an option to perform the repack.

The plane recovers from a spin without the chute. This has been demonstrated. The key is to prevent spin entry...do you really believe that Cirrus owners are more likely to spin just because they have a chute? Do you have any basis for this thought?

So...What are the parallels in the gyroplane world? More casual pre-flights and maintenance, taking bigger chances, and feeling immortal in general?

Do seatbelts and airbags in your car make you feel immortal? Do they make you drive more casually? Do they make you take bigger chances and do less maintenance? I can't see how you jump to such conclusions.

Properly designed, correctly assembled, well-maintained rotor and control systems don't have a history of failure, are effective even below 500', won't make me lazy, and don't have to be replaced every ten years. For me, the downsides of BRS on a gyro easily outweigh the advantages.

Having another tool in the bag of available safety tools is, in my opinion, not a negative thing. If having another safety tool in your bag makes you a lazy or complacent pilot, then you need to take a hard look in the mirror. If there were a design as well engineered as that in the Cirrus that was available for a gyro, I would certainly opt for it.

Mike

Disclaimers:

I have built and flown a gyro and have had forced landings.
I have built an experimental airplane (Rans S-16)that I wish had a chute designed in.
I have owned a few fixed wing aircraft without chutes in the past.
I own and fly a Cirrus SR22 (for the last 5 years) and really appreciate the aircraft design and safety features.

[Steve McGowan]

Without getting into a big peein contest,, look at the big ceiling fan over your head in any rototcraft..

The best OFFENSE is a good DEFENSE..... proper maintenance,, proper training and most of all Proper Mind Set about what and where your flying this bucket of parts..

UNTIL someone INVENTS a sure fire safe Balistic,, For Rotorcraft and uses it..

Then I'll stick to chapter #2 of this statement..

Steve

[PW_Plack]

Ouch, look at all the facts and you will see that more people have died trying to stretch an engine out landing when they could have pulled the chute. The chute works, period. This is supported by facts.

Mike, no question. You've jumped to the defense of your airplane, and that's fine, but there is not a single conclusion in anything I posted. I'm simply thinking out loud the questions I'd ask myself before choosing a BRS for a small aircraft. I acknowledge they may not have clear answers.

In the case of that engine out, there would have been no stretching required. The challenge, if there had been one for a proficient pilot, would have been to manage losing enough altitude. If I recall correctly, he was at or near oxygen-required altitude, and the airport was within seven miles.

Do you really think that is the reasoning behind the chute in the Cirrus Design, seriously?

No thinking required. From the "Why Cirrus" website (http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx):

The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins.

I find no disharmony between this and other Cirrus decisions in design, such as fixed gear for a plane in a speed class where retractable is the norm, but also a cause for lots of banged up planes (when pilots forget to put the gear down.)

Your numbers are wrong. The cost to repack is about $10k. Not a whole lot in aviation monetary units for a plane costing what a Cirrus does.

If that's the correct number, I agree.

Do seatbelts and airbags in your car make you feel immortal? Do they make you drive more casually? Do they make you take bigger chances and do less maintenance? I can't see how you jump to such conclusions.

No conclusion stated, only a question asked. I do believe the design of modern cars has led people to drive more aggressively in general. It would be hard to assess a subconscious influence such as airbags/seatbelts.

In general, I feel that ALL humans are prone to complacency, not just a few bad apples. I'll acknowledge that some of us get complacent even when flying without a 'chute.

Perhaps a better question to keep this thread on track - Does the fact that gyroplanes are always flying in autorotation, and can generally make a straight vertical landing without serious injury to the pilot, make gyro pilots feel more at ease flying with unreliable powerplants and questionable design choices?

That one's pretty easy - It's a frequent boast.

[rfsolutions]

The vertical decent rate with the rotor system is less than that of a canopy and you can control where the aircraft goes with the rotor system. Comparing engine out landings between rotorcraft and fixed wing is an obvious apples and oranges comparison. Unless the rotor system has stopped or departed the aircraft I wouldn't opt for a chute. You already have one!

[SpyderMike]

Mike, no question. You've jumped to the defense of your airplane, and that's fine,

Not quite. Not my intention actually. I don't need to defend my choice of aircaft...I buy and fly the aircraft I want to because I can. I have owned a few types and built a couple too. That has nothing to do with my response. I responded to you because I just don't follow your line of questioning/reasoning regarding the concept of a BRS. You asserted that the chute was embolding pilots to buy a Cirrus aircraft and crash it due to lack of proficiency. I don't think that is a responsible generalization. It is that simple.

In the case of that engine out, there would have been no stretching required. The challenge, if there had been one for a proficient pilot, would have been to manage losing enough altitude. If I recall correctly, he was at or near oxygen-required altitude, and the airport was within seven miles.

What specific incident are your referring to? I am talking in a general sense. People have died in off airport and on-airport attempts to land in emergency situations. In some cases a BRS could have saved lives.

There was a case last year involving an SR22 in which the pilot had an engine failure within easy gliding range of an airport, but chose pulling the chute over attempting a dead-stick landing on a runway.

Not being in the cockpit and not knowing the pilot personally i can't speak for his/her decision making process, however, we can state that he is alive. Correct? How is that not a desirable outcome? Is the fact that the plane was most likely insured and the insurance company now owns it a problem? I can site other cases where people are dead because they tried to get to an airport within "easy" gliding distance and didn't make it for whatever reason. They didn't pull the chute when they could have. They could be alive, but they are not. Is that a desireable outcome? I would think not.

Cirrus made an interesting design decision, betting the 'chute would give pilots a better chance at a non-fatal outcome than trying to keep them proficient at recovering from spins or inadvertent flight into IMC

When does an aircraft manufacturer take responsibility for "trying to keep them proficient at recovering from spins or inadvertent flight into IMC"? Isn't that the responsibility of the pilot? More likely, based on their past experience and their desire to improve safety, they (Cirrus) analyzed the major causes for accidents and took it upon themselves to try to design in safety features that could address those issues (provide more tools in the safety tool belt).

No thinking required. From the "Why Cirrus" website (http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx):

The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins.

From the same page:

"Despite some suggestions to the contrary, CAPS was an integral part of the Cirrus SR20 development from initial conception. Cirrus Co-founder Alan Klapmeier was inspired after surviving a mid-air collision early in his flying career. He wanted the SR20 to have some form of life saving device for when the pilot lost control of the airplane. Even in the mid-nineteen nineties, Cirrus saw parachutes proving themselves in the ultra-light arena and ready to be applied to heavier aircraft.

Perhaps a better question to keep this thread on track - Does the fact that gyroplanes are always flying in autorotation, and can generally make a straight vertical landing without serious injury to the pilot, make gyro pilots feel more at ease flying with unreliable powerplants and questionable design choices?

Personally, I don't think so. From my recollection, strapping into a gyro I felt like I was taking a bigger risk and that the rotating disk did not embolden me or make me feel at ease at all; quite the contrary.

Gyros aren't always in autorotation, maybe while they are in controlled flight, but I would submit that many gyro accidents are due to a loss of control... I think of bunt overs, recent loss of control accidents at take off, blade strikes, structural failures, mid-airs, etc. A BRS isn't necessarily designed for situations where control is maintained but those where it is lost.

If you want more insight into the impact of the BRS in the decision making process of a pilot, then I would encourage you to post your statements above at the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association website at www.cirruspilots.org in the guest section and specifically to contact Rick Beach who analyzes every Cirrus accident in great detail. You will get an open and honest discussion going. Or, you can contact some of the survivors who used the BRS. I have, and I have found it very enlightening.

[Steve McGowan]

The vertical decent rate with the rotor system is less than that of a canopy and you can control where the aircraft goes with the rotor system. Comparing engine out landings between rotorcraft and fixed wing is an obvious apples and oranges comparison. Unless the rotor system has stopped or departed the aircraft I wouldn't opt for a chute. You already have one!

I think we,ve gotten into the Rong area of flight discussion,, Cirrus SR22 witha Gyro comparison.. Those SR22's are very dangerous.. I really don't feel comfortable in one.. since they cannott do autorotation at all..

[PW_Plack]

...You asserted that the chute was embolding pilots to buy a Cirrus aircraft and crash it due to lack of proficiency. I don't think that is a responsible generalization. It is that simple...

Mike, if you'd like to debate what's actually been said, it might have some value. This becomes much less interesting when you keep putting words in my mouth. I never asserted any such thing. I simply wonder about it.

I have no doubt the COPA folks would sing in unison with you. I don't lack for orientation. I've flown an SR22, had extensive talks with folks in the company (in its better times), and have spoken personally with Alan. He's also working with BRS on a system for the Kestrel turboprop, which will be really interesting.

By now I'm sure this thread drift has become annoying to most readers, so I'll butt out. I agree BRS has value, but I think the cost/benefit on a gyro, with cost defined widely enough to includes money, weight, and the introduction of possible new hazards, argues against it in this application.

If you want to talk R22....eh, maybe!