What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV12is BRS

Bogdan

Member
Hi everyone. This topic was started 5 years ago and with your permission I will start it again. Having a 12is project, I? m wondering if anyone tried to fit a rescue parachute in. If I remember correctly someone did all the calculations and weights but nothing solid at the end. My question is, can be done? Thank you
 
A BRS parachute will be definitely be a part of my RV-12. But like all builders I start with the empennage kit, which is on its long way. So I have no solid facts yet. What I have is direct contact to BRS Germany and an engineer, they often work with and the determination to make it work.

The right size chute for the weight and speed range is the BRS-1350. Its over all weight, including rocket and holder is about 13kg . The dimensions of the small package containing the vacuumed chute are hight=410 mm, wide=250 mm, hight=150 mm, weight 9,7kg. This should easily fit into the baggage compartment. The rocket could go into the baggage compartment. But it is not a too nice experience to have it go off just behind your back, like a friend told me first hand. It is loud and fills the cockpit with steam. Yes, just steam, no fire and smoke. These rockets don't use gun powder. Maybe place it on the rearward wall of the baggage compartment and the chute inward. Of course, hiding the lines is not so easy on a low wing aircraft.
 
BRS

Not aware of any steam powered rockets. They all have some kind of combustible propellant. Not sure I?d want that next to an internal fuel tank. I?m prepared to stand corrected.
 
At 13 Kg, that is already 28 lbs.
I have enough experience with BRS systems to know that the 28 lbs is probably not enough to account for the weight of the risers and other add ons that will be required to connect the chute to the aircraft.
By the time you add that, the total added weight will have eaten up a good majority of the available baggage payload.
If the aircraft occupants will always be on the lighter side as far as human adults go, then the loss of payload weight might not be too big of an issue, but unless an installation can be designed that would mount the canister in the baggage area the C.G. shift induced by the installation would likely make the baggage area just about unusable, regardless of the weight of the bodies in the seats.

All of the BRS systems I have seen use rockets with a solid fuel propellant. Not what I would want firing off from inside the passenger compartment in an airplane I was flying....
 
Last edited:
I think some ultralights use a compressed gas system. I considered a BRS, but I concluded the gas tank would be an issue due to the harness. I was concerned that any harness attached to the main spars could rupture the tank on deployment.
 
Here is a paper that may be of interest to anyone considering a BRS. It primarily addresses the application of a BRS to a hang glider but much of it may be applicable to a light experimental aircraft as well. The author, Betty Rothman, is a very experienced and respected Hang Glider and Ultralight flyer and previously owned a parachute and harness manyfactruirn company whose products are still making "saves".

http://www.highenergysports.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/BallisticControversy.1171338.htm
 
Thank you for the input. It would be great to share some thoughts on the technical details, without the conversation drifting off to fast in the direction of "chutes are just for bad pilots or badly constructed planes". There are good arguments pro and con. Lets just for sake of a good brainstorming suppose, for some people to have a rescue system is worth the effort.

Not what I would want firing off from inside the passenger compartment in an airplane I was flying....

I am sorry for writing down the rocket motor - steam - smoke topic so little precise. What I meant was, this not the type of black powder driven firework rocket. Sure, a BRS rocket uses a solid chemical propellant, but it is different. The chute companies homepages surely will have the information in english. (I cant describe better) Anyway, of course it is best to keep the rocket out of the cabin. It is not nice the other way, but the guy, with the rescue system inside the cabin also told me, the cabin cleared in seconds.

If the aircraft occupants will always be on the lighter side as far as human adults go, then the loss of payload weight might not be too big of an issue, but unless an installation can be designed that would mount the canister in the baggage area the C.G. shift induced by the installation would likely make the baggage area just about unusable, regardless of the weight of the bodies in the seats.

Very good point. You are absolutely right, the main weight of the system needs to be near C.G. Best place seems to be the baggage compartment, The package is not big, so there is not much wasted space, just lost payload (what is bad enough, but if you want something you have to except its downsides).

I considered a BRS, but I concluded the gas tank would be an issue due to the harness. I was concerned that any harness attached to the main spars could rupture the tank on deployment.

At this point, attaching the harnesses seems the biggest problem to me. Of course the main spar is the strongest part of the plane. But I hope other good attachment points a little forward and rearward can be found. Four such points must be found. The plane must hang with a slight nose down attitude. Can someone provide the distance of the main spar to the C.G. range?
 
Thank you all for your interest and discussion on this topic. I?ll speak with an engineer myself soon and asap I will post the outcome. I feel responsible somehow to add one more thing; when I started the topic, I wasn?t thinking about bad pilots vs good pilots and bad constructed airplanes vs good ones. I was thinking about structural failure for exampleor flying over forests/water and when you intend to fly with your 5 years old child (because he?s so in love with airplanes), being a good pilot or having the best airplane, is never enough to feel and to keep him safe- let?s try to find out if we can improve a project which is already amazing. Thank you again for your support
 
Jump

If a BRS is deployed the airplane is most likely going to be a total loss. Instead of spending all the time and money trying to install a BRS why not just buy a couple of bail out parachutes?
If you?re terrified of jumping out, you will change your mind when facing certain death.
It also seems that BSR systems tend to make people get themselves into situations that they would avoid without one. The guy that took off VFR into a 200 foot ceiling in a cirrus comes to mind.
 
Tommy123, I think you might find it impossible to jump out considering the RV-12?s tilt up canopy.
 
Nope

I have a friend in South Georgia, also a crop duster and owns a Cirrus. He said, "There's no way in h*** I'd pull the 'chute because you have no control over where it lands."
I'm riding it down under MY control, he said.

Best,
 
I was thinking about structural failure for exampleor flying over forests/water and when you intend to fly with your 5 years old child (because he?s so in love with airplanes), being a good pilot or having the best airplane, is never enough to feel and to keep him safe- let?s try to find out if we can improve a project which is already amazing.
I'll offer my thoughts and then shut up and go away...

The only conditions under which I can imagine an in-flight structural failure of an RV-12 would be in the case of extremely poor construction or maintenance, or flight into conditions where stresses exceeding the airplane's capability might be encountered. Any of those are well within the pilot's control. If you're really worried about engine failures, don't fly over large stretches of open water or dense forest. So... being a good pilot and having a good airplane can indeed be enough to keep you safe. If you still don't feel safe... will a BRS really help? How do you know for certain it will actually work as intended? Who's going to test it? Are you "fixing" one risk, just to add a few more?

As for "improving" the RV-12, I can think of a few ways to do that. Hanging a bunch of weight a couple feet aft of CG, adding more external drag, and cutting holes in the fuselage are not among them.

I guess it's a matter of personal choice and priorities. Good luck with your project.
 
Thank you Dale, I really appreciate what you said, and now, I tend to think that you?re right. Probably I was looking for perfection or reassurance. I agree with both, sometimes a BRS could be life saver, sometimes is better to trust your skills and to build a good airplane. Your answer is more than common sense and I appreciate. Thank you 👍✈️
 
I've installed a BRS in another experimental aircraft model. Open cockpit wood and fabric airplane- wasn't a huge deal for that application.

Keep in mind that the rocket must not only punch through the canopy, it must also pull the chute and bridle through as well. Without ripping it to shreds. I can't imagine all that activity going off right behind my head, in an unusual attitude / structural failure situation right next to a fuel tank. There are several Youtubes of BRS rockets being test fired, you be the judge.

If you're serious about engineering something, I'd suggest a remote rocket install somewhere behind a fabric breakaway panel, bridle to the chute that is stored somewhere else to preserve CG. But you're going to have external bridles, which is what I've seen on the few BRS-equipped RV's, somehow bonded externally to the skin (under fabric?) so that they unzip with a deploy.

Not an elegant solution at all. I'd vote for a good canopy jettison strategy and backpack chutes.
 
"Tommy123, I think you might find it impossible to jump out considering the RV-12’s tilt up canopy."

Not impossible... other Van's model aircraft have tip-up canopy that is jettisonable. I like the part "If you’re terrified of jumping out, you will change your mind when facing certain death."
 
I have a friend in South Georgia, also a crop duster and owns a Cirrus. He said, "There's no way in h*** I'd pull the 'chute because you have no control over where it lands."
I'm riding it down under MY control, he said.

Best,

I have been wondering if you were ok? Been awhile since I have read your wisdom.
 
I have never felt the need for a BRS, (partly because if the airplane isn’t designed for it, you are building an untested compromise, and partly because there is a limited corner of the risk box where it is the only answer to staying alive) but I am not morally opposed to them. In fact, my new project WAS designed for it, and while it is an option, I decided to go for it, because the cockpit is small enough that a personal parachute really isn't a viable option.

What I find interesting is that I actually feel good about knowing that it will be there.
 
Last edited:
"WAS designed for it"

that makes a big difference in the implementation, if VANS ever elected to design in a BRS as an option I am sure that it would be done right and that many potential builders would consider that option. I also suspect that most builders are comfortable with and have the training to stay away from the coffin corners of the flight envelope and are able to assess the risk associated with flying where options are few for getting the aircraft on the ground in the event of an engine problem.

-larosta
 
I have noticed that I can?t rotate my canopy latch on landing roll out until I slow down to less than 20 knots. I think it?s due to lifting forces on the canopy, and it makes me wonder if you could even unlatch the canopy in flight let alone open it and jump. ?- Nope, I?m not confirming that with a flight test!
 
Jump

Tommy123, I think you might find it impossible to jump out considering the RV-12?s tilt up canopy.

You?d be surprised what you could do when death is imminent. It would be somewhat easier to install a canopy jettison like on the -7 tip ups have than a BRS system.
BTW I opened a C-172 door fully in flight and held it open for my friend who was following me out. He took his time getting positioned.
Then there?s always a canopy cracker. If you?re attempting to make your airplane 100%, no way you?re ever going to get hurt, no matter what, good luck with that. Better to spend your time at a amusement park, but they?ve had fatalities too.
 
Someone posted that they are looking forward to flying with their 5-year-old son.........

The slow stall speed (47mph) and light weight (740 lbs empty) make the RV-12 very survivable in an off-field landing. The 5-point safety belt will support and contain you as the remaining energy is dissipated.

“If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.” — Bob Hoover.

I’ll take Bob Hoover’s advice any day…
 
The slow stall speed (47mph) and light weight (740 lbs empty) make the RV-12 very survivable in an off-field landing. The 5-point safety belt will support and contain you as the remaining energy is dissipated.

You are right. The RV-12 has an excellent record and it is my belief it is the best kit plane in the 1320lbs class. That is why I am building one.

On the other hand side, the plane I fly now and built the last 14 months, is a Savannah (something like the CH750cruiser) It has a stall speed around 30mph and full aileron control at low speeds. So there is even less need for a chute. But you know what... it has a BRS system and would not want it any other way. Am I an unskilled or careless pilot, by deciding to have a chute? Well at least I am not an experienced pilot with my 90 hour. Maybe once I reach 1000 hours, I will have a completely different view. But for now I want one. I know a Greek pilot who also built a Savannah some years ago. I dont know for sure, but I think he did a good job building, but he made one little mistake. He forgot one little cotter pin. The plane had a great maiden flight and he did some more short flights this day. Everything went just great until he suddenly lost elevator control. Two people where falling to crash into rocky territory and their sure death. But when he built, his wife begged him that he installed a rescue system. He did her the favor and the plane landed safely on a chute and with very little damage. Did he make a mistake...YES.... did he deserve to die or should he be allowed to learn from his mistakes? Who can honestly say, he never made a mistake?
 
Back
Top