Parachutes?

[MrGrey]

This may be a dumb question but I have never encountered this subject or heard much about it.

-Is there such thing as a parachute safety system available for either gyros themselves or pilots?

[Cobra Doc]

The short answer is "no". There is no practical way to accomplish saving the aircraft or jumping from a failed rotorcraft. Unfortunatly the last thread on the subject is gone. Nothing practical, but a lot of entertaining ideas.

[Ron Marlett]

Air command installed a ballistic parachute system on it's 2 place ship. I believe they called it a GRS for Gyro Recovery System. As far as I know, it has not been successfully tested on any gyro. If I recall correctly, their plan is that the parachute deploy down and aft with a temporary attachment point out near the right main wheel. When deployed, the ignition is automatically cut and the parachute causes the gyro to trip forward and hang by that right main wheel. When the rotors have slowed sufficiently, a second cable is pulled and that temp parachute attachpoint near the wheel releases and the parachute cable which is secured along the mast allows the craft to right itself and hang from the main attachment point up on the mast. Sounds like a whild ride but if the worst should happen, some chance is better than no chance... You should be able to find some more info on the system at air command's website.

Ron

[donshoebridge]

The short answer is "no". There is no practical way to accomplish saving the aircraft or jumping from a failed rotorcraft. Unfortunatly the last thread on the subject is gone. Nothing practical, but a lot of entertaining ideas.

What's up Doc? :) It's not gone, it's just harder to find. I think this is the thread you were talking about.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2261&highlight=ejection+seat

[Allantat]

I'm starting construction on a Monarch Butterfly (parts arriving daily) and the instruction manual calls for part # BT0014 "Parachute Mounting Tube" If you were to purchase this $2,700 option the manual says the chute is mounted under the gyro so it fires backwards and to the side. With the gyro falling nose first,a parachute firing backward is firing upward relative to the ground. When the pilot deploys the chute, it shuts down the engine and HOPEFULLY the chute inflates within 3 seconds.

The parachute bridle is attached to a latch near the right main gear. With the gyro hanging under the chute from the latch by the right gear, the blades stop turning almost immediately. The pilot then pulls another handle to release the latch. The chute pulls the bridle to near the top of the mast. Aircraft then re-orients itself to descend in an upright position, about 10 inches nose down.

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE! The tail of the gyro weathervanes downwind so the gyro is moving tail-first at touchdown. The nose gear of the gyro touches ground first, and the gyro lands backwards. THE ULTIMATE 'E' TICKET RIDE!

The manual goes on to say the system hasn't been tested either.

[donshoebridge]

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE! The tail of the gyro weathervanes downwind so the gyro is moving tail-first at touchdown. The nose gear of the gyro touches ground first, and the gyro lands backwards. THE ULTIMATE 'E' TICKET RIDE!

The manual goes on to say the system hasn't been tested either.

So here's the $64 question: How do they know it'll land backwards if they've never tested it?

Like many people have mentioned in the thread/link that I posted... In the event of some form of a catastrophic event which would warrant the deployment of a ballistic chute, the chances of the chute deploying clean, that is without getting wrapped up or around something, specifically the rotor blades, the airframe, the engine, and/or your neck, I feel that it's highly unlikely that you could survive such an event.

Having said that, the single most likely event that could occur would be a bunt or push over, in which case you're a tumbling mass of man and machine, falling at a high rate of speed. You can fall a long way in 3 seconds. But for the most part, everyone knows how to avoid these events. Most, if not all can be designed out of the aircraft before the first parts are cut.

Possibly the second most likely event that would warrant the deployment of a ballistic chute would be a structural failure of some kind. This could come from poor design, stressing the aircraft, whatever. Here again, I think the aircraft is going to be tumbling in a predictable manner. However, looking back at gyro accidents that have occurred as a result of a structural failure, they're almost nonexistent. The most recent one that I know of happened on the ground where a bolt broke while back taxiing. It was a freak accident.

IMO, the bottom line of avoiding either one of these 2 situations comes from good design, good fabrication, and good maintenance, to include good preflight inspections, and possibly even post flight inspections. I would hate to see a BRS become a band-aid for deficiencies in other areas, human or otherwise. I'm not saying that the Monarch Butterfly is a bad ship, I couldn't tell you one way or another. But I guess I would have to question the motives of why there is a BRS on a gyro in the first place. Marketing?

[birdy]

the blades stop turning almost immediately.

The only time this happens is if they hit sumthn hard, like the ground.

If theres a mechanism that locks up the rotors after chute deployment, then the machine will spin, and I don't reckon that'd be real handy if your hang'n from chute strings.

Reckon I'll take me chances with strucual failure.
I'd rather die in spectacular style and make a big mess than get hung by the neck by a chute.

[murraybarker]

I think Ernie Boyette once said that rotor blades slow down 100 RPM's a second when unloaded. This certainly was true with the last accident I investigated where the rotor had stopped before the gyro hit the ground. Even without the cenario of the parachute tangling on the wreckage as it was tumbling around, it is unlikely the pilot would have the time or the strength ,due to g forces,to locate and pull the handle.

[KenSandyEggo]

Birdy, a chute won't open from 6 meters up.

[birdy]

Duh, thanx Ken, never thought o that.

How did he figure that Murray??, every time I land it'd take um 10 mins to stop if I didn't stop'm by hand.
[ Bout 400 rpm at landing flare= 4 seconds and I can tie um down........?????]

[RayPierce]

"How do they know it'll land backwards if they've never tested it?"

Call it the law of averages.... I jumped out of C119s at Fort Benning and every PLF I made was a rearward landing.
http://web.aikenelectric.net/~rcpierce/C_119.jpg

[murraybarker]

Birdy, 100 RPM's a second when unloaded in flight, not on the ground.

[Cobra Doc]

Sorry Don; I guess I just didn't look hard enough. Either way, I'm not going back in to the dissertation about how the Army spent millions to learn how to crash 2 perfectly good Cobras at the same sime time.

Three other famous (or otherwise) Ft Campbell incidents:
1. Two Helmet Sight Subsystem students in Cobra and the Advance Instructor flying wing. The instructor was talking to the gunnery student during live fire and the student looked at the instructor. Took us a month to patch all the mini-gun holes.
2. An A-10 in transit during live fire exercises passed between an S model Cobra and his target. Something like 45 holes in a perfectly straight line down the side of the Hog.
3. A UH-1 under NVGs going into a night LZ mistook a UH-60s IR position lights for the pad lights. The 60 was at flight idle getting ready for take off. It took Sikorsky a couple of years to rebuild the 60.

[donshoebridge]

Sorry Don; I guess I just didn't look hard enough.

I searched for "Ejection Seat", and it popped right up. :D

[donshoebridge]

Even at 100 RPM decel rate, the riser lines are going to be in the path of the rotor blades for at least 1-2 seconds while the blades slow down. In an open frame style gyro, I think it would be suicide. In an enclosed gyro you MIGHT be able to get away with it, so long as the gyro was upright and the riser lines never went under the cabin. But there wouldn't be anyway to insure the attitude of the aircraft.

[Hognose]

Larry Neal was responsible for the BRS system in both the old Air Commands and his current birds. It's particularly for buntover type accidents. As Murray points out, it is normal for the rotor to have ceased rotation in these long before impact. Larry's reason for this is indeed safety, not marketing. It is not a perfect solution but one which might work.

Once the chute is fully deployed you are fully decelerated. BRS's lowest save is, IIRC, around 25 feet AGL. Skydiving and military type parachute opening altitudes and times don't apply to a rocket-launched, slider-controlled parachute.

A couple of years ago I discussed this with several BRS execs. We concluded that an ideal solution would have a hollow rotor mast with the BRS on top like the mast-mounted sights used by military helicopters, and safety cables running through the center of the hollow mast. No one has built such a machine, but it remains a good idea.

You could deal with the problems of G forces and pilot incapacitation by keying the BRS to fire in responce to a rate sensor or "solid-state gyro".

cheers

-=K=-

[donshoebridge]

You could deal with the problems of G forces and pilot incapacitation by keying the BRS to fire in response to a rate sensor or "solid-state gyro".

If the rotor head design utilized a pneumatic means of firing (pilot operated, ballistic initiator), instead of the a mechanical cable that is currently used, gas pressure could be routed to several different devices so that everything happened at the same time. In other words, when the pilot pulled the "Oh $H!+" handle, the rotor blades would depart the rotor head at the same time the deployment rocket fired.

IMO, until someone performs extensive testing with such a system and actually deploys a chute, I'm going to look at BRS's on a gyro as nothing more than marketing fluff. Sorry, but I just don't have a lot of confidence with the whole BRS/Gyro concept, and I think it's short lived. We're all learning more and more about the dynamics of gyros and what the key variables are that contribute to bunts and PPO, and more and more people are taking the necessary steps to avoid these kinds of situations through design and knowledge.

But that's just me :)

[Heron]

My suggestion:
In my other country, a single seat gyro will cost some 2,5 G's and with the parachute mounted and some remote control costs will range 5 g's.
Pilot bails out, remote activated, cut engine and fires the BRS, cameras catch the action.
Where to get the money?
ideas?
Heron

[donshoebridge]

My suggestion:
In my other country, a single seat gyro will cost some 2,5 G's and with the parachute mounted and some remote control costs will range 5 g's.
Pilot bails out, remote activated, cut engine and fires the BRS, cameras catch the action.
Where to get the money?
ideas?
Heron

Heron,
The biggest problem here is that when the pilot bails out, the weight of the gyro changes dramatically! Example: A couple of years ago at Mentone, the big event that was planned was having Dana Bowmen (ex-Green Beret, ex-Golden Knight) skydive from a gyro. Up until that time, it's believed that it has never been done before. Steve McGowen flew Dana to altitude for the jump, and when Dana jumped, Steve's gyro launched like it had a rocket strapped to it. The same thing is going to happen with the R/C gyro. Unless there is someone in the aircraft, or at least a dead weight taking the place of the pilot, the sudden change in weight is going to really disrupt the flight and change the dynamics of the test.

I say use a dead weight and flight the gyro remotely right from the beginning.

[robertstodaro]

Maybe a BRS maker will donate a system and there's enough equipment out there to cob together a test machine.

The film value to CNN alone could pay for the whole thing.


The skydive forum ( www.dropzone.com ) touched on gyros once.
They'er more afraid of gyros then spam canners are.


I feel that if you left a single seat gyro at 8k with a 100 foot static line to deploy the BRS and continued to free fall away from the wreckage
you'd stand a better than fair chance of pulling it off.

Just need to find someone with enough hair to do it.

Tim Chick is a skydiver, hey Tim, wuffo you want to jump outta that parachute.

[Jerseywing]

In looking at all of this I believe the true conclusion is that it will leave a mark, maybe several (including skid marks) :eek:

[donshoebridge]

The first thing is that we, the gyro community, would like to see is real BRS testing where the gyro is configured in a typical manner. If I remember correctly, the whole idea behind the BRS was to help people with their fears of a Buntover/PPO. In that case, the test gyro must be put into a Bunt and then the BRS needs to be deployed. A gyro that is still under the control of the pilot could easily survive a BRS deployment, IMO. But if the gyro is controllable and can be flown to the ground safely, then there's no need for a BRS.

A few years ago, there was an accident study done. This report instantly became the poster child to horizontal stabs. If you recompile the data in a logical and objective way, only 20-30 percent of all of the accidents studied could be attributed to failings of the gyro itself, which includes Buntovers, PPO’s and PIO’s. The other 70-80 percent of the accidents could have been avoided had the pilot not pushed the envelope, made a bad decision, had better training, or just maintained the gyro better. As I see it, it's the 20-30 percent that needs to be looked at, because the remaining 70-80 percent falls into the category of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make then drink."

Bottom-line, the BRS must be tailored for the 20-30 percent of the accidents where the pilot has lost control. However, I think that this 20-30 percent can be designed out of the gyro. Better stability and ease of control through better gyro designs would knock this percentage way down, and wouldn't add the weight, cost or complexity of the BRS.

Basically, I’m not going to mount a BRS on my gyro because of the following reasons; 1) there isn’t any evidence that supports it’ll even work in an emergency situation, i.e., Buntover, 2) there isn’t enough interest in the gyro community to support the development of such a system, and 3) I think the whole idea of mounting a BRS to a gyro is nothing more than a Band-aid for poor gyro design. There I said it! Sorry. :o :cool: :eek:

[Heron]

The BRS will work only in a few cases for sure, altitude is a factor and loosing the flying surfaces another (blades gone).
The process of how do perform the test has to be discussed by more experienced pilots and Craig Wall offered some time ago to do that.
Main thing is to check the deployment and see if it will really tumble the blades away from the canopy and later unlatch it to the upright position.
I do no believe the mast mounted parachute is a good thing.
Anyway it is a last chance to falling equipment and probably worth the try.
Heron

[donshoebridge]

I'll bet that a helicopter would be more stable in a catostrophic emergency situation (engine out, loosing the tail rotor, etc.) than a gyro in a bunt. With that being said, why haven't we seen any of the big helicopter companies exploring this idea? How about a Robinson R-22? It can't be much heavier than a Cessna or Piper. I'm begining to think that it's just not very practical to put a parachute on a rotary winged aircraft.

[Hognose]

Some comments:
1. Don, there is NOTHING extra on an R-22 because an R-22 has a lift reserve of just about zero with two pax and fuel.

2. While it is true that most reasons for getting in a jam in a gyro are human factors related, it is unrealistic to assume that we are going to train or proceduralize them out of the system. Sport aviators are not flying in teams under a Part 121 manual or NATOPS or any such restrictive procedures document. It is worth noting that a large number of BRS's saves are in mishaps that were caused by the pilot. This is true in everything from Quicksilvers to Cirruses. If we want the sport to grow, we have to reduce the consequences of error below death penalty level.

3. Anybody have any photos or video of buntovers? I have a two or three shot photo sequence of Pee Wee Judge tumbling Wingco Wallis's Little Nellie all those years ago; that's it. It does appear that Larry's chute might well have saved Judge.

4. The obvious (to me) method of testing chute concepts is with scale models, with airfoils etc corrected to the right Reynolds numbers, etc. The correction/scale error factor is important because air molecules and their properties do not scale proportionally to models.

cheers

-=K=-

[donshoebridge]

Kevin,

I think you may have misunderstood my point a little. I wasn’t trying to make a case that chutes should be put on helicopters first. My point was that if the idea of putting a chute on a rotary winged aircraft is such a priority, why haven’t the companies with the deep pockets produced something? It’s obvious that companies like Bell/Textron have deep enough pockets to try something like this, just look at the ejection seat testing that was done in the 60’s with the Cobra.

With the advancement of BRS systems now on par with the weight and operating speeds of fixed wing GA aircraft, surly the chutes can handle your average sized helicopter and 2-place gyro. But there must be a reason why large aircraft companies haven’t dumped copious amounts of cash onto a project like this. Personally, it think it has to do with the practicality of the design, or the lack there of. The whole success or failure would depend on what happens to the rotor blades? Or how to control them during deployment (if possible)? My guess would be that rotor blades and rip-stop nylon wouldn’t play well with each other.

The other point that I was trying to make with my previous post was that since helicopters have considerably long tail booms, the aircraft isn’t going to be tumbling nose over like a gyro might/could/would. A helicopter with the rotor blades jettisoned would naturally fall nose first. Jettison the blades from a gyro, and who knows what direction the nose will be pointing. Worst case with a gyro would be if the BRS deployed in the direction that the gyro was traveling, which would make the chute one big piece of wrapping paper for the gyro.

That reminds me of an incident where some clown was doing something that he shouldn’t have been in a paraglider. The end result was that he somehow he managed to get himself above the chute and when the chute slowed his accent, he fell back into the chute, right dead in the middle, and fell straight to the ground with no hope of surviving. It video looked like someone had put a bowling ball into a bed sheet and threw it off the top of a building.

If you could keep the gyro from yawing, deploying the chute out the side might be the best bet. The risers could still be attached to the top of the rotor head. But now if the gyro in question did buntover, deployment to the side would reduce the risk of falling back into your own chute and becoming a streamer.

As for testing this, the problem I have with using scale models is that you would need to get the weights and structural integrity of the rotor blades and airframe scaled down as well. That in itself would be enough of a challenge.

[KenSandyEggo]

I hate to think of what a set of twirling, jettisoned blades would do over an urban area, where a lot of us have to fly. Mine would head right for the nursery school playground at recess, I'm sure.

[_MOL_]

Seen on Proair's Skywalk in AERO 2005 exhibition in Friedrichshafen.
Parachute system installed like this.
Explained like this: http://www.proair.cz/
Nothing mentioned about how it is supposed to work, neither if it has been tested or not.

[ToddP]

Unfortunatly the last thread on the subject is gone. Nothing practical, but a lot of entertaining ideas.

Nothing is gone. I've never deleted a message since the day the forum started. Over 60,000 messages. Just need to do a search. Here is the thread you're talking about.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2261&

[donshoebridge]

Nothing is gone. I've never deleted a message since the day the forum started. Over 60,000 messages. Just need to do a search. Here is the thread you're talking about.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2261&

WOW! Did that ever refresh the memory cells! :p

[REDHORSE556CES]

The solution has arrived! :D :D


http://autogire.nuxit.net/Photos%20qui%20tuent/siege_gyro.jpg


We wish!!!!!!!

[robertstodaro]

That's no ejection seat.

That's a standard seattank with a seam split!

[donshoebridge]

The solution has arrived! :D :D


http://autogire.nuxit.net/Photos%20qui%20tuent/siege_gyro.jpg


We wish!!!!!!!

I have that picture. Whoever made it up did a real good job with it.

I was reading your signature and I had seen a write up when I was in the USAF. Discrepancy: Radar does not operate in O.F.F. mode. The pilot grounded the aircraft because of this. When the Crew Chief finally had a chance to read the write-ups, he threw a fit! I can't say that I blame him. The Corrective Action specified was "In accordance with TO1F-16-1, radar will not operate in "OFF" mode!"

[birdy]

Wot a waste of a good gyro.

[bartc150]

I'm sure this has been thought of, but why not have a chute on top of the rotor like the radar globes the military uses on their attack helicopters. I understand there has to be some sort of rotor modifications, but it seems feasible. Maybe like a shaft running thru the rotor head connected to the mast. Just an idea.

[Brian Jackson]

I'm sure this has been thought of, but why not have a chute on top of the rotor like the radar globes the military uses on their attack helicopters. I understand there has to be some sort of rotor modifications, but it seems feasible. Maybe like a shaft running thru the rotor head connected to the mast. Just an idea.
I believe in order to keep the BRS pod stationary (non-spinning, for obvious reasons), the rotorhead spindle would need to be hollow and much larger in diameter to spin around the BRS shaft. The shaft too must be hollow in order to facilitate the necessary wiring to fire the chute. This arrangement greatly increases the diameter and number of bearings required. In addition, the BSR shaft could not be rigidly mounted in the mast since it would need to pivot at the same points as the cyclic travel of the head.

Then there's the problem of the shaft's interference with the teeter bolt, which would require that either the bolt were so huge that you could bore a hole through the side of it for the BSR shaft to pass through, or use an articulated rotorhead design that doesn't use one. Either way it's not an elegant solution for a gyro. Helicopters can get away with this because their heads tend to be beefy and complex to begin with. But in my humble opinion this configuration is simply not practical for a lightweight rotorcraft.

Regards,
Brian Jackson

[bartc150]

Thanks... I would rather have solid rotorhead parts anyway.