VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-28-2017, 06:25 AM
KatanaPilot KatanaPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 363
Default Not entirely accurate

Quote:
Originally Posted by OkieDave View Post
Originally, it was included because the Cirrus can't recover from a spin--the ability to recover is a certification requirement, so the FAA allowed the BRS as an alternate means of compliance.

Beyond that, I think it's the tool of last resort any time a pilot gets in over his head. The Cirrus is a very high-performance aircraft, and we all know what happens when you mix that with a pilot who can't stay proficient; think "fork-tailed doctor killer."
I think you can easily find data to refute this statement. I believe the issue was more that the SR-20/22 did not meet the Part 23 recovery guidelines and the CAPS was installed as the AMOC. The DA40XLS with winglets did not meet the spin recovery requirements either, so the winglets were never delivered on these aircraft.

From Part 23 -

A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.

Check out the article from COPA here.
__________________
Krea Ellis

Locust Grove, GA
DA20-A1 Katana "Princess Amelia"
RV-7A Phase 2
RV-10 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2017, 06:51 AM
Auburntsts's Avatar
Auburntsts Auburntsts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dumfries, VA
Posts: 2,590
Default

Debate on the BRS efficacy aside, I'm interested in the engineering details of necessary structural changes that would be required for a successful installation. I have absolutely zero interest in installing one on my RV-10, but I'm curious nevertheless.
__________________
Todd Stovall
PP ASEL-IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying!
WAR EAGLE!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-28-2017, 07:26 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 963
Default Interesting

I find the Cirrus reasons kind of humorous...

Turbulence? Pop the chute.
Lose SA? Pop the chute.
Ice? Pop the chute.
Lose control? Pop the chute.
System failures? Pop the chute.
Engine failure? Pop the chute...even if you are over a runway.

Really?

I can see structural failure, or engine failure in mountainous terrain, and certainly pilot incapacitation but the others?

That being said, I bet when the actual data comes out you will be looking at 60+ pounds...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful

Dues Paid 2017,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2017, 08:23 AM
OkieDave OkieDave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KatanaPilot View Post
I think you can easily find data to refute this statement. I believe the issue was more that the SR-20/22 did not meet the Part 23 recovery guidelines and the CAPS was installed as the AMOC. The DA40XLS with winglets did not meet the spin recovery requirements either, so the winglets were never delivered on these aircraft.

From Part 23 -

A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.

Check out the article from COPA here.
You're correct, and I should have been more precise with my wording. "Cannot recover within the requirements" would have been better.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-28-2017, 08:35 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OkieDave View Post
You're correct, and I should have been more precise with my wording. "Cannot recover within the requirements" would have been better.
I think even more to the point is that because they were from the very beginning designing the airplane to have a chute (it was part of their marketing strategy), they didn't need to do testing to prove whether the airplane met FAR23 spin recovery requirements. They were granted a waver because the POH stipulates pulling the chute if a spin occurs.

My personal (that is the key word in these discussions... everyone has different needs/viewpoints) feeling is that on an airplane of the class that an RV-10 (or cirrus) is, the chute is far more of a marketing feature than it is a practical design feature, considering the trade off in empty weight / reduced payload, etc.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:44 PM
cccjbr6 cccjbr6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 147
Default

I came to my RV-6A from a Cirrus that I flew for 6 years. The best reason I can think of is the no one has ever died in a Cirrus when the chute was pulled within its design parameters. Put differently, 100% who pulled the chute survived engine failures at night and over water, forced landings, spins, low altitude loss of control in IMC, icing, and the list goes on. The same cannot be said for every similar incident in a RV. The biggest problem Cirrus drivers have is not pulling the chute soon enough and often enough. The chute is about the only thing I miss about the Cirrus and wish I could add to my RV.
__________________
Chris Kimble
Birmingham Alabama
RV-6A Bluebird- Beautifully built by Bob Axsom
$50 donation gratefully made (worth every penny)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:07 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman1988 View Post
I find the Cirrus reasons kind of humorous...

Turbulence? Pop the chute.
Lose SA? Pop the chute.
Ice? Pop the chute.
Lose control? Pop the chute.
System failures? Pop the chute.
Engine failure? Pop the chute...even if you are over a runway.

Really?

I can see structural failure, or engine failure in mountainous terrain, and certainly pilot incapacitation but the others?

That being said, I bet when the actual data comes out you will be looking at 60+ pounds...
I think you are oversimplifying the Cirrus guidance, and doing a disservice to them.
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 355 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B, N564NS - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:46 PM
fr0gpil0t fr0gpil0t is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: phoenix
Posts: 41
Default

I was an early Cirrus owner - and the initial advice was mid-air, failure etc. pull the chute. In fact I think the first pull was after maintenance and the aileron was not fully attached.

What changed it for me was the death of an experienced Cirrus pilot, engine failure and seemingly straightforward dead stick landing - I think close to the runway. Sadly it did not work out. I like many pilots thought why would I pull the chute on a dead stick landing I had a practiced that a thousand times.

Another way of looking at the scenario everyone has walked from a chute deployment made within the parameters, but a small (probably unknown) percentage have not walked away from the list of events you noted as humorous advice to use the chute

So I see the chute as another option for the pilot - either trust the chute or your own skill. The current data supports the former but it doesn't stop the pilot making the choice.

Robert
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2017, 05:58 PM
N402RH's Avatar
N402RH N402RH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 625
Default

As of 22 February 2017 there have been 71 saves with 146 survivors in aircraft equipped with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS):

http://https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10

Last edited by N402RH : 08-28-2017 at 06:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-28-2017, 06:08 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 841
Default Bad Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by N402RH View Post
As of 22 February 2017 there have been 71 saves with 146 survivors in aircraft equipped with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS):

http://https://www.cirruspilots.org/...s-history.aspx

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10
Bad link. Try this:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/sa...s-history.aspx
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 355 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B, N564NS - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.