Stunning Video: Non-Cirrus Comes Down Under Chute

Holy cow. Unless a major part is missing, I’d much rather fly it in than land like that.
 
Salty said:
Holy cow. Unless a major part is missing, I’d much rather fly it in than land like that.
Click to expand...
The article author indicated that was, as designed... Guess you don't need multi G seats for that design. Definitely a prop strike though!
 
Salty said:
Holy cow. Unless a major part is missing, I’d much rather fly it in than land like that.
Click to expand...
Figure the van in the background is 8-10ft tall, that looks like about a 10mph impact.
 
The Cirrus is designed to land on its landing gear absorbing some of the impact.
Landing nose first seems like a design flaw.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
The Cirrus is designed to land on its landing gear absorbing some of the impact.
Landing nose first seems like a design flaw.
Click to expand...
Well, it's designed that way on purpose. Seems terrifying to me. Imagine dropping into a forest of pine trees face first. As I said, with that design, I'll keep flying it unless there's an important part missing.
 
I swear he rolled over and kissed the ground when he slid out.
 
riding nose down like that.....that's like one of those bungee sling shot rides you see at amusement parks near I drive in Orlando!
 
I noticed the canopy was open but figured he popped it. I probably would have used the chute for that. Certainly if it was truly loss of control, but even if not, if parts are flying around, I’d use the chute. Even if it’s flying now if the canopy hit the tail lord knows what could happen.
 
asicer said:
Figure the van in the background is 8-10ft tall, that looks like about a 10mph impact.
Click to expand...

Not bad at all. A Cirrus lands at about 17 mph under the canopy.

That nose-down attitude would be scary, though. Was that the pilot that we heard hollering just before landing?
 
Thinking about it, if the structure and harnesses are designed for a frontal impact at the design descent speed under chute, that may be a reasonable choice.

In the Cirrus, landing nearly flat, they had to design crushable seat cushions and, as mentioned, gear designed to collapse to help absorb the forces generated in a 17mph vertical impact. Absent those design features, a flat impact could easily fracture vertebrae or pelvis. I’m pretty sure one vertical impact of a Cirrus into water, negating the gear’s protection, did result in a significant back injury. Here’s a link to that accident: http://ilanreich.com/Public_Pics/Crash/Cirrus in the Water.htm
 
Last edited:
Yet the knucklehead with the camera stays on the sidewalk and films instead of heading over to assist the pilot and unknown passengers!

l’ll never understand these people.
 
pmanton said:
Although while the plane landed intact, the pilot died while trying to exit the vertical aircraft. :p
Click to expand...

It looked like the plane might have rolled onto its belly if that thing with "469" weren't in the way for it to lean on.
 
Why did they design it to nose dive like that?
 
Restating my speculation:

Perhaps they determined that a frontal impact at 10 mph was survivable with shoulder harnesses in place, but that a flat impact at that speed could cause back injuries.
 
I did my own guestimate of vertical speed and came up with about 7.5 to 8 MPH....so yeah, 10mph is maybe a good ballpark for sure!

Even at 10 MPH vertical speed, coming down uncontrolled like this seem like such a cra@p shoot....
no telling what you'll land on or in
& there's a horizontal velocity and swinging that would be very random

another thought about the vertical orientation...would it be better generally speaking if coming down in trees?
 
Brad W said:
another thought about the vertical orientation...would it be better generally speaking if coming down in trees?
Click to expand...
Not to me. Falling face forward into branches? No thanks.

But, it seems better than falling out of the sky in an uncontrollable aircraft.
 
Still, much better than coming down without the chute so I consider this a win for everybody …
 
I am not sure about the use of parachutes. Once that chute is deployed, the pilot has relinquished all control of the aircraft. At this point, the pilot can only hope the plane doesn't drop down on somebody or something. I wouldn't want a chute unless there was a loud siren and loud speaker on board so that the pilot can be alerting people on the ground.
 
lsaway said:
I am not sure about the use of parachutes. Once that chute is deployed, the pilot has relinquished all control of the aircraft. At this point, the pilot can only hope the plane doesn't drop down on somebody or something. I wouldn't want a chute unless there was a loud siren and loud speaker on board so that the pilot can be alerting people on the ground.
Click to expand...

To date, that fear seems largely unjustified.
 
lsaway said:
I am not sure about the use of parachutes. Once that chute is deployed, the pilot has relinquished all control of the aircraft. At this point, the pilot can only hope the plane doesn't drop down on somebody or something. I wouldn't want a chute unless there was a loud siren and loud speaker on board so that the pilot can be alerting people on the ground.
Click to expand...
How many people on the ground have been injured as a result of a parachute pull?

So many folks out there think they're some kind of master aviator who will be able to easily glide to a beautiful landing when they have some kind of mechanical failure. The best part is, most people have at best "not crappy" landings with a running engine. And no one can really properly practice a real engine failure forced landing

The PA32 accident recently likely would have resulted in no loss of life had there been a chute
 
Tantalum said:
How many people on the ground have been injured as a result of a parachute pull?

So many folks out there think they're some kind of master aviator who will be able to easily glide to a beautiful landing when they have some kind of mechanical failure. The best part is, most people have at best "not crappy" landings with a running engine. And no one can really properly practice a real engine failure forced landing

The PA32 accident recently likely would have resulted in no loss of life had there been a chute
Click to expand...

PA32... comes down quickly is heavy and sinks even with power. You dont have as much range as you think..I have found its more like a brick compared to a smaller PA28. Chute would be nice. Especially if loss of power happens at night.
 
“Glides like a brick”
It’s bizarre to me that anyone is building non caps enabled GA planes. What is the total weight penalty?
 
Even if that’s the weight you care about, we’re talking tiny fractions of overall cost, no?

(not to mention the clearly demonstrated sales advantage)
 
Hengelo said:
“Glides like a brick”
It’s bizarre to me that anyone is building non caps enabled GA planes. What is the total weight penalty?
Click to expand...

Off another forum on repack / inspect :

My G3 is coming out of University Air in Gainesville, Fl next week. Around $18,500.00. Shipping costs for the rocket has gone up substantially and the MCU can no longer be modified and has to be replaced if it is the earlier model. One thing to consider is that there is no sales tax in Florida.​

Every 10 years.

And ~ 80 pounds and half the baggage compartment for the Cessnas, I believe.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but to always think that they should design these systems with at least some basic controllability while under the canopy....steerable rectangular chute perhaps

But I was thinking about this one, pointing straight down with the prop completely fee by the looks of it form the lines.... start the engine back up under idle power, might be just enough to get just a wee bit of forward speed over the rudder ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top