Detachable pods on parachutes

modern ballistic recovery chutes on light planes have probably saved quite many lives.
I wonder how much the idea faced opposition during the years.
 
Any plane other than the Aardvark have this kind of setup?

crew-module-test.jpg
 
Thanks, I knew one did and couldn't put my finger on it..

Did Comanche too, or is that just "Goldeneye" colouring my memory?
 
Thank you my dears,

and from the Site which my dear Jemiba displayed it;

http://modelarchives.free.fr/Bestiaire/Benayad_P/index.html
 

Attachments

  • Hubert 1.jpg
    Hubert 1.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 254
  • Hubert 2.jpg
    Hubert 2.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 236
  • Hubert 3.jpg
    Hubert 3.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 49
mz said:
modern ballistic recovery chutes on light planes have probably saved quite many lives.
I wonder how much the idea faced opposition during the years.
Click to expand...

Most of the opposition on production aircraft cam from two camps: First the "He-man" camp which felt that if you flew right, you wouldn't need such a wussy thing. Second, those who felt that the increase in safety wasn't worth the extra weight, cost and complexity, weight being a big thing on a light plane. The jury may still be out on that last, as the Cirrus aircraft, the first (I think) production aircraft to use it do not have a better safety/survival recovery record than those non-equipped. In fact, ironically, the accident rate is a bit worse.

Part of the problem may be the same thing seen when certain safety devices (such as anti-lock brakes) got introduced to automobiles. It looks like people subconsciously thought that since they had these magical brakes they could drive "closer to the edge". In a similar manner, there's some thought that the chutes on light planes may also give a subconscious lowering of the guard, where people were continuing into situations where they would have backed off without the sense of security of the chute. It's also thought that some people looked at it like a zero-zero ejection seat and waited too long to deploy it. There's also some speculation that people were reluctant to use it because although it could save your life, the aircraft usually would suffer sufficient damage that it could not fly again. This made people want to try and "save" the situation until it was too late.

Hopefully, education and training will overcome these situations.
 
Gridlock said:
Thanks, I knew one did and couldn't put my finger on it..

Did Comanche too, or is that just "Goldeneye" colouring my memory?
Click to expand...

The helo in "Goldeneye" was the Eurocopter Tiger. It shows the power of the James Bond films, because when it flew in the movie there were only two or three of them in existence, yet Eurocopter made one available. Another example was in the movie Bond drove a BMW Z3 for a short bit. At the time of filming, I believe it was the first production one in the world.
 
There are some system like that in service to land the ENTIRE plane like the BRS, of course works only for light aircraft.

A real case of use over the pampas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI&feature=related
 
This idea was used in fiction in the classic* Lord of the Flies by William Golding. The boys are travelling in an aircraft that develops trouble and the passenger cabin is released and parachuted to a (supposed) place of safety.


*Classic, as in 'schoolkids must read this'. ;)
 
Nick said:
This idea was used in fiction in the classic* Lord of the Flies by William Golding. The boys are travelling in an aircraft that develops trouble and the passenger cabin is released and parachuted to a (supposed) place of safety.


*Classic, as in 'schoolkids must read this'. ;)
Click to expand...
So that's why it's some times called SF... ;)
 
Also from l'Aeronautique 1934.
 

Attachments

  • 3.png
    3.png
    676.6 KB · Views: 45
  • 2.png
    2.png
    519.3 KB · Views: 46
  • 1.png
    1.png
    471.9 KB · Views: 45
detachable-cabin.JPG

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/detachable-cabin-invented-to-save-lives-during-plane-crashes-a6814311.html​
 
Page 154;

https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=RHt86xArAsoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ar&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    146.4 KB · Views: 158
Hi,

http://www.maximonline.ru/longreads/get-smart/_article/black-box/
 

Attachments

  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 60
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 101
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    138.4 KB · Views: 96
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    198 KB · Views: 100
The second picture does not apply to the theme of the topic. It is the world's first backpack parachute Kotelnikov design.
 
Thank you my dear Granit for that explanation.
 
From Toute L'Aviation.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    714 KB · Views: 49
  • Toute_l'aviation_Ouvrage_honoré_de_[...]Blanc_Edmond_bpt6k9807582h_330.jpeg
    Toute_l'aviation_Ouvrage_honoré_de_[...]Blanc_Edmond_bpt6k9807582h_330.jpeg
    404 KB · Views: 44
The HP Victor was originally designed to have a jettisonable cockpit/nose cone using a set of explosive bolts. A glider was set up as a scale (3/5ths?) model with about 40 feet of multicore cable connecting sensors in the cockpit to a transmitter in the fuselage via a quick-release connector to check how it released. The afternoon before the test a tidy minded electrician (not knowing what the test flight was for) saw this vast bundle of wires and shortened it. As a result the telemetry signals lasted about a quarter of a second; the concept was not proceeded with. All the production Victors, however, had the cockpit section attached to the fuselage by four large bolts.

SRJ.

Edited to restore missing bracket.
 
Last edited:
Patent No. 457694 filed in Belgium in 1944 by Robert Van Rolleghem and Baron Edouard de Broqueville.
 

Attachments

  • 1944.jpg
    1944.jpg
    121.1 KB · Views: 28
I would think airship gondolas would lend themselves to this concept the best.

Attachment to zeppelin in the middle, with risers to either side attached to parachutes that are not packed into bricks, but line either side of the envelope with few folds.

The gondola itself similar to housed over lifeboats with props:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=rOJOTEwJ2V8
Or this as an escape pod separate from the gondola if need be.
 
Last edited:
Only about 11% of commercial hull-loss accidents occur in cruise; by far the most are on landing, 60%, or take-off, 15%. To jettison a cabin in those phases would possibly be as fatal as the actual crash.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Nah, the best escape system is:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_(Star_Trek)
Click to expand...
I've seen how often those break down. No thank you.



Kiltonge said:
Only about 11% of commercial hull-loss accidents occur in cruise; by far the most are on landing, 60%, or take-off, 15%. To jettison a cabin in those phases would possibly be as fatal as the actual crash.
Click to expand...
You'd need something along the lines of a zero-zero ejection seat, and those aren't very gentle to the poor soul strapped to them.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom