What is the approximate rate of decent with the CAPS deployed??
If memory serves, its around 1600FPM.
Roger
N706CD
What is the approximate rate of decent with the CAPS deployed??
What is the approximate rate of decent with the CAPS deployed??
It is about the same as the U.S. Army Parachute…22’per sec. or about the same as jumping off a 8-10 foot wall. By the time the nose and main gear collapse, and the frame and seats absorbe the fall, it should be a non-event for those inside…with the exception of your underpants.
Denis
What is the approximate rate of descent with the CAPS deployed??
If memory serves, it’s around 1600FPM.
Roger
N706CD
… or, put another wway, about 18 MPH. It’s easy to imagine surviving an 18-MPH auto crash in a car with airbags. In a Cirrus, the collapsing landing gear and compressible seats play the role of the airbags.
Cheers,
Roger
You might want to do the comparison considering the total speed of the a/c - if your ROD is 18 mph (your #) and fwd speed is 15 mph (?) then the total speed/energy is about 24 mph. How you hit is the unknown.
Still the chute is a nice option. I like the Mooney’s steel cage and continuous spar but who also like the chute - as an option.
JMHO - Your mileage may vary
What is the approximate rate of descent with the CAPS deployed??
If memory serves, it’s around 1600FPM.
Roger
N706CD
… or, put another wway, about 18 MPH. It’s easy to imagine surviving an 18-MPH auto crash in a car with airbags. In a Cirrus, the collapsing landing gear and compressible seats play the role of the airbags.
Cheers,
Roger
Another aspect must be factored into the equation. The utility of the collapsing gear and seat energy absorption features decreases proportionally to the angle at which you hit. While the ideal attitude is likely if you drift down and “land” on flat terrain, the outcome may be quite different if you strike objects such as trees or rock outcroppings or any other of a myriad of objects before kissing Mother Earth.
The scenario I imagine is descent into a tree that, say, strikes the left wing and tips the airplane so that it then strikes the ground in a 90 degree bank (or even inverted). What might have been a walk-away event is not nearly as nice a picture.
And this may be the norm rather than the exception. After all, if you have some nice flat terrain beneath you you’d likely have opted to land the airplane rather than pull the 'chute. Certainly there are cases where you you’d have to pull it (night, IFR, structural failure or impact) but I hope people don’t think of the 'chute as a sure thing.
It may foster an insidious predisposition to pull the 'chute in cases where a conventional emergency landing would be a much better choice. Remember, when you pull it you are now a passive passenger with absolutely zero control of where you end up.
As I posted once here quite a while ago, it isn’t always an either/or proposition. For example, if you are IFR and there is a high ceiling and the engine seizes, you’d be better off gliding down until beneath the ceiling and then sizing up your options than to just knee-jerk pull the 'chute.
Gordon
It is about the same as the U.S. Army Parachute…22’per sec. or about the same as jumping off a 8-10 foot wall. By the time the nose and main gear collapse, and the frame and seats absorbe the fall, it should be a non-event for those inside…with the exception of your underpants.
Denis