|
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
news:1249pr92arpn221@news.supernews.com...
>
> "RAM" <rmaccrone@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:wWV0g.930487$xm3.207853@attbi_s21...
>
> > It appears then that the rocket is the link in the "system" that is most
> > likely to degrade with time. Given a choice (and assuming I needed it),
> > I would
> > rather have a system with a questionable rocket than none at all!!
> >
>
> There are other names for a questionable rocket. One that comes to mind is
> bomb.
>
>
That's a valid point, although I have never heard of a solid fuel rocket in a
ballisticaly deployed parachute "exploding". I believe that it the event of
an instantaneous and total ignition of the charge (which you alude to) the
container would fail long before an explosive pressure could be generated.
I think the issue of rockets that are "old" is the previously mentioned
oxide which forms resulting in a misfire.
Still, given a choice (and still assuming I needed it) I would risk a "misfire"
or even a burst case over the alternative. As was mentioned early on in
this thread, the BEST option is an airworthy system (in date and properly
maintained).
Rick
|
|
Re: Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
