Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:18:01 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4020302@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=r.simon@ustek.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Airframe Parachute
In-Reply-To: <4B22956D.6040305@Logan.com>
Thread-Topic: Airframe Parachute
Thread-Index: Acp83W1YaTf06AcrTwSLs/YB6dnUuw==
References: <4B22956D.6040305@Logan.com>
From: "Lancair" <lancair-esp@ustek.com>

I went to their site and noticed that they insist on using a bogus
comparison of vertical speed (1700 fpm under their panic 'chute) with
horizontal speed (60 kt in a flown aircraft).  My GlaStar in a full
stall dropped at 45 kt and 500 fpm, so had less than a quarter of the
energy to dissipate when hitting the ground compared to a BRS
deployment.  Any aircraft with wings still intact and not in a spin is a
vehicle, not a lawn dart, and should be piloted as such.  Perhaps Cirrus
drivers need a wee bit more instruction. =20

Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Logan [mailto:Rob@Logan.com]=20
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:55 PM
To: lml@lancair.net
Subject: Airframe Parachute


I just don't get it... why someone would deploy a parachute over a
plowed field or if the door is open.. the parachute weight in fuel is
offers soooo many more options. Alittle rain in the door is much less of
a shock then the 4's door blowing its seal...

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx

sorry, vent mode off.

			Rob