Rans S-9 loses wing, pulls chute, pilot OK (15 Aug 2010)
Clearly this guy was not short of luck, to walk out from a chute pull with less-than-ideal dangling attitude and post-touchdown fire! (the interesting bit starts at 1:50)
|
A superb ending to a very frightening incident.
Not a good advert for Rans perhaps but an excellent one for BRS! A very slow descent rate and consequent light impact with the ground is impressive, it's just a shame that the shute got wrapped around the fuselage on deployment (I presume) leading to the nose down attitude. Otherwise the aircraft may well have been salvageable too. |
Amazing and terrifying. Other than the obvious, what on earth could have happened?
|
It looked to me like that was how the BRS was attached, I don't think it was caught on the fuse, just that's it's natural hang point probably.
As for re-using an aircraft after a chute pull, I don't think that's the norm is it, the stresses put on an aircraft through a deployment would at a minimum require a complete strip and rebuild I'd imagine. I think this is a good advertisement for BRS chutes for aerobatic aircraft, this is exactly what they are best for, catastrophic structural failure, without the chute, this poor fellow would have been very much dead. Well done that man! |
Wow, impressive, well done the man and congrats!
Also quite amazing how the announcer doesn't miss a beat but asks everyone to remain calm and where they are and then goes on to explain the reason for the fire and that the pilot has walked away. BRS :ok::ok: |
More pics
Better resolution pictures of the failed wing and tangled chute on Airliners.net.
|
How could this happen? The aircraft didn’t seem to be doing anything that might overstress the airframe immediately before the wing fell off…and then in an interview the pilot diagnoses the issue as "metal fatigue". As someone currently flying around in a 1979 cessna, without parachute, the idea of random metal fatigue is kinda concerning!
|
The aircraft didn’t seem to be doing anything that might overstress the airframe immediately before the wing fell off… Not something you'd be doing in a Cessna (hopefully) :ok: |
I don't care how good the engineers were, I wouldn't fancy flying an aeroplane which had suffered an in-flight structural failure in which the wing fell off, then a parachute deployment, then a drop onto the ground at 20mph. An aircraft, like any machine, is merely an assembly of parts. Any damaged parts can always be replaced and the machine restored to as new condition, it's just a matter of whether it's economically viable or not. If man can make it, man can repair it. |
the aircraft was designed for the 503 or 582 two stroke power plants, and at the MTOW you get when you use these powerplants it might be +6/-4 G. However, rumour has it that engines up to 100 horse power have been fitted to the airframe. This must increase the all up weight somewhat and thus reduce the G you can safely pull. I wonder what engine was in the display aircraft, it certainly didn't look short of climb performance. Still, it was most impressive up to the point where the pilot wished he was flying an Edge 540!
Rans6.. |
Nightmare scenario for any pilot, what an advertisement for BRS though! It seems to have worked very effectively in this case. Well done that man!
|
I wonder what engine was in the display aircraft, it certainly didn't look short of climb performance. http://www.hangardelcielo.com/sistemasfotos.htm Google translation of the conversion: From 1996 to date we have developed and tested the systems needed to make our aircraft powered by Rotax 912 and 912S inverted flight and allow all kinds of acrobatic maneuvers without alterations in the supply of fuel and lubricating oil. In the same way the system was developed to apply to the exhaust fumes from the engine. It looks like the airframes have had quite a hard life performing in many airshows. They do not hold back. http://www.hangardelcielo.com/images/morteros.jpg |
I like the vertical shot. The pilot has got the stick back in his guts and is leaning about as far backwards as he can!
Interesting shot above , I thought it looked wrong in the video, thats an S10 NOT a 9. |
I thought it looked wrong in the video, thats an S10 NOT a 9. http://www.hangardelcielo.com/laescuadrilla.htm |
Trust
Quote I don't care how good the engineers were, I wouldn't fancy flying an aeroplane which had suffered an in-flight structural failure in which the wing fell off, then a parachute deployment, then a drop onto the ground at 20mph.
No one I know would put an aircraft back together if they did not think it was safe to do so, a year or so back I saw a Cirrus writen off not because we were unable to fix it but because it was perceived that the market price for the aircraft would be to low due to "damage history" and not for any good technical reason. It was a shame to see a good aircraft go to the junk yard for no good reason |
Looking through the COPA magazine there are companies out there who will repair your Cirrus after a CAPS recovery. I wonder if many people would opt for repair or push their insurers for a new aircraft using a similar excuse given to A and C.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.