|
On 04/18/06 15:11, RAM wrote:
> "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
>
>
I am not sure the decision is between having (possibly a bad) one versus
having nothing at all. Assuming you need one (some day), do you want to
pay the money to be (relatively) sure it will work, or save some money
and have it (possibly) not work.
You can argue that even if you pay for a current system, it may still
not work, but I think we can agree that the odds are a lot better that
it will.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
|
|
Re: Ballistic Rocket Chute FS
