BRS Emergency parachute

cmtealoysio said:

Ok, I will send a photo to your e-mail. Regards!

Click to expand...

Thanks! I got the photo. Very interesting. Thanks again

Photo

Can you post the photo on this thread?

Thanks

Kindly send or post photos of your BRS install

Hello, wife says BRS is required equipment in potential new -9 build, so I'm looking at options.
Thanks
Steve Campbell
RV-6 (sold in '07)

Light sport should be 1400 Lbs

This would be a good reason to move light sport to 1400 LBS
BRS Emergency parachute and a real aircraft engine.

My view


Joe Dallas

Here?s one for the RV-7/7A and 9/9A.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brsparachuterecovery13-14785.php

Click on the documents tab and there?s a PDF that shows how to install it.

A couple of real-world points to consider...

Glasair has developed a BRS for their popular Sportsman 2+2 aircraft. It is available fitted to the aircraft during the Two Weeks to Taxi program, or as a factory-retrofit for existing aircraft. It is not yet available for homebuilder installation.

Here's a video of a ground test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NQRYkIcj4c

Cost is about $34K installed, and about a 50lb hit on useful load.

One area of design which I don't think I saw covered in this discussion is passenger safety as a result of energy-absorbing seating design. This is a very important area, and is a key ingredient in the success of the Cirrus system. In the case of the Glasair Sportsman, the seat cushion design is already well on its way to being a very good energy-absorbing design, and the overall crashworthiness of the airframe has resulted in several folks walking away from what would have been an unsurvivable accident in other aircraft types. If installing a BRS, please do give consideration to the seating and ensure it is able to absorb high vertical loads, lest you survive the impact only to have your spinal column crushed.

Canadian-JOY, that's a very valid point. With the seats being (essentially) on top of the spar / carry-through structure in the 6s/7s/9s), there is very little room (just a few inches of seat cushion) for energy absorption. Might the 8 or 14 be a better contender; I think the 8 has much thicker seat cushions? Of course, routing the lines to the '4-corners' would also pose some challenges. Presumably, they'd run on the exterior of the skin covered with fiberglass fairings of sorts.

Frankly, I think Van's missed the boat in this regard with the 12 & 14. You folks likely read the recent article about the positive trend with Cirrus CAPs deployments. It's difficult to argue against a properly designed and utilized BRS system. In my case, the lack of a BRS offering may drive me away from taking on another RV project.

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse here, but any additional technical insight regarding the energy absorption requirements and methods to mitigate spinal compression (or other probable injuries) would be much appreciated.

rv9builder, Ah - thanks for the link to the offering in AS&S Co. Apparently, my line of thinking about routing the straps under fiberglass firings is already put to fruition.

Canadian_JOY said:

Cost is ... about a 50lb hit on useful load.

.

Click to expand...

And there's the issue. For a lot of planes that can seriously impinge on what you can or cannot do in the plane. So some cheat on the gross weight limits. And a few are then taken by surprise by the higher stall speed, or reduced climb rate. How many? I have no idea, but I doubt it's zero.

n601sc said:

Canadian-JOY, that's a very valid point. With the seats being (essentially) on top of the spar / carry-through structure in the 6s/7s/9s), there is very little room (just a few inches of seat cushion) for energy absorption. Might the 8 or 14 be a better contender; I think the 8 has much thicker seat cushions? Of course, routing the lines to the '4-corners' would also pose some challenges. Presumably, they'd run on the exterior of the skin covered with fiberglass fairings of sorts.

Frankly, I think Van's missed the boat in this regard with the 12 & 14. You folks likely read the recent article about the positive trend with Cirrus CAPs deployments. It's difficult to argue against a properly designed and utilized BRS system. In my case, the lack of a BRS offering may drive me away from taking on another RV project.

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse here, but any additional technical insight regarding the energy absorption requirements and methods to mitigate spinal compression (or other probable injuries) would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

Thickness of a seat cushion is just a very small part of vertical impact safety. In fact, if made of the wrong material, a thick cushion could be much more dangerous than a properly engineered thin cushion.

I humbly suggest that if you get the point of relying on the thickness of your seat cushion for protection you are VSF (Very Severely ---well you can figure out the rest)!

RFSchaller said:

I humbly suggest that if you get the point of relying on the thickness of your seat cushion for protection you are VSF (Very Severely ---well you can figure out the rest)!

Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that same statement can be made in most situations where a 'chute pull has become necessary!

The thickness of seat cushion, it's density etc can play a role in absorbing vertical impact forces, however in cases where there isn't sufficient depth available to allow development of a purpose-engineered seat cushion solution, then the underlying structure needs to be design to absorb the vertical energy.

I don't know anything about how one goes about designing for "controlled crumple" of structure, but I have seen the end result of a well-designed energy absorbing seat. A particular helicopter was involved in a high energy crash where the main rotor RPM decayed badly, resulting in quite high vertical speed on impact. The pilot (the only person aboard) didn't walk away, but, because of the seat design, he also didn't suffer crippling spinal column injuries. The seat structure looked well and thoroughly "squished". To my untrained eye it looked as though the structures engineers hit their design goal pretty much right on the money.

A few years ago I saw an article about designing airline seats. The cynical conclusion was that it was better to have the families of dead passengers than crippled survivors. Cost - Benefit analyses are a B+*ch!