What's new
Van's Air Force

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

BRS Parachute System

cwharris

Active Member
I was wondering if anybody is considering installing a BRS Parachute System on their RV. I contacted BRS and they said that ?While we haven?t completed an installation design for the RV-14 yet, I would suspect it would share the same philosophy used as the 7/9. ? I was also wondering if anybody has ever seen one installed on an RV and what it looks like. I was thinking about getting the BRS Installation Kit while I?m working on the Empennage. I don?t want to start hacking on my plane once it gets built. Quoted pricing from BRS was $4,000 for the Installation Kit and for the Full system is $8,949.00. Would anybody know what kind of added weight we would be talking about and what it would do to my CG?
140vnmv.jpg
[/IMG]
 
From Aircraft Spruce Website:

This BRS parachute recovery system is for the RV-7 and the RV-9 aircraft. This system includes the parachute, rocket, harness, mounting trials/tray and the harness fairings on the exterior of the aircraft.

The system weights 44.48 lbs
 
There is a considerable difference in the fuselage structure of the -14 vs the -7. I highly doubt the parachute tray brackets, harness trays, harness fairings and parachute harness will be dimensionally close enough to fit the -14 fuselage.
 
BRS Dimensions

The BRS people told me that they are either working on the RV14 Installation Kit or they just got done with it. I cant remember what they told me but they said that the installation kit and mounting will be just like the RV7&9 and they sent me that picture on how it will mount.
 
I briefly toyed with the Idea of installing one on my 7 I am finishing. The cold hard facts is this, I'm guessing 40 lbs behind the baggage compartment of a RV7 will render you extremely tail heavy. Maybe it would work in the 9 with a 360 up front as they tend to be nose heavy. Not sure how the 14 is designed.
 
I've seen a BRS installed on an RV at Oshkosh 2010 just need to dig for more pictures :)


 
I have a dumb question. What about throwing a couple of regular parachutes into the baggage area of the plane? And put them on if you really can't put the plane down safely? Isn't the plane destroyed anyway with the BRS system?

Could you install parachutes directly into the seats and still make them comfortable?

Blast away. I know that I will get slammed for asking this question. But I am curious as to what people think.
 
I saw the BRS system at Oshkosh a few months ago. It sounded like a great idea when you first see it and I though to my self how great it would be. After asking several questions I felt that the system is not only not proven and tested on the RV but the added weight to the rear would actually limit me on long trips such as Oshkosh. Losing the ability to load the RV with the recommended baggage weight didn't make sense to me. Then I thought of the idea of using a seat parachute that you just sit on and are strapped in all the time, but somewhere on the forum I read that it's virtually impossible to slide canopy open in normal flight.... also read that it is possible to move it some if you are at lower speeds so I don't really know what or who to believe. Bottom line is the BRS has not been tested or deployed in an RV (according to the BRS folks that I spoke to at Oshkosh) which makes us test pilots :( I would love to hear more about anyone who has experience or have heard of a slider being able to be opened in flight. I've always been under the impression that if the canopy came open in flight and did slide all the way back, chances are that it would leave the plane and have a high likelihood of taking out the tail. If that is in fact true, then if there is only an engine failure with no place to put it down, opening the canopy (if it can be opened) could possibly cause a much worse structural emergency giving you no choice but to leave the plane. This is one of those subjects on a -7 slider that I really don't know a lot about and would love to learn some more.
 
Amir,

Notwithstanding the other legitimate concerns you've expressed, I would not be too concerned about the lack of actual BRS deployment in an RV. The BRS systems have been deployed and used successfully in a variety of airframes, and I would trust their engineers to create a design in the RV that would also be successful.
 
I flew a Cirrus for 7 years before trading up to my RV6A. When I first got into the Cirrus, I did not really care about the parachute, having flown for 35 years without one. Over the next 7 years I became a believer. COPA, the Cirrus pilots group, is a safety conscious group with excellent data on the chute. I read their detailed analyses of every Cirrus incident in which it was deployed and could have been deployed but wasn't. Most of them involved engine failure, IMC problems and loss of control near the ground. Every time it deployed within design parameters correctly, everyone lived. When it was not deployed within parameters nearly everyone died. In my view it is not a close call. The chute saves lives and could have saved more of then had the red handle been pulled. The lack of a parachute is the only thing I don't like about my RV. I want an RV someday with one in it. It would be worthwhile to studying RV accidents to see if a chute might have made a difference.
 
... Maybe it would work in the 9 with a 360 up front as they tend to be nose heavy. Not sure how the 14 is designed.
Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on what prop and accessories are added. A metal CS prop, maybe you will be OK. A lightweight composite prop, like a FP Catto and things can be a challenge.

I just added a 40 LB BRS 12" aft of the baggage location (and I suspect it will actually be further aft than 134") and the biggest problem with the -9 is the 1750 lb GW. You will very quickly bust the GW and if you have baggage and low fuel, you will be AFT CG with two people on board, in my -9. Other -9's may vary.

The thing is, the -9 has such a low landing speed, if you hit the trees head on at minimum speed, you should be OK.

Question for those who have flown an SR-22, what is the maximum deployment speed? If someone loses control in IMC and the speed builds, can you deploy the BRS with any expectation of a good result? (I would pull it regardless because it might be my only hope, if I were in that situation.)
 
Question for those who have flown an SR-22, what is the maximum deployment speed? If someone loses control in IMC and the speed builds, can you deploy the BRS with any expectation of a good result? (I would pull it regardless because it might be my only hope, if I were in that situation.)

COPA keeps very good records on CAPS deployments.

Here's the scoop on chute deployments and speeds so far:

"Tests demonstrate that within 8 seconds all forward velocity is reduced to zero (relative to wind) and descent occurs at about 1700 fpm or 17 knots or 20 mph. The parachute deployment airspeed was demonstrated at Vpd of 133 knots. The demonstrated loss of altitude was 400 feet from level flight and 920 feet from initiation of a 1-1/2 turn spin. Four CAPS deployments occurred successfully at higher speeds, 168, 171, 187 and 190 knots indicated airspeed, and one deployment failed at speeds estimated at over 300 knots airspeed."

From: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx
 
Some Thoughts on Ballistic Recovery Systems and Alternatives

I find the subject of modifying an RV to install a BRS an interesting one. While I believe that the Chute O Matic systems are a remarkable improvement on some aircraft. I personally would want on in my Cirrus, Mercedes or any other vehicle that was an "S" class luxury mode of transportation. I believe that the RV may not be the best application for the technology.

We know that the Cirrus BRS is an integrated system that was designed around a requirement for a BRS from early in the development process. Well done!

The requirements for the RV apparently have never included a design requirement tat would support the installation of a BRS, therefore it appears that most attempts at making the necessary modifications to the airframe quickly run into problems. This is the burden of trying to design a one size fits all solution.

Given that the RV airframe continues to prove how strong it is my suggestion would be as a first order safety upgrade to consider one of the several cockpit airbag systems that have come on the market in the past few years. They are light weight, relatively low cost, and require minimal modifications to the airframe to be effective. As an added bonus, it appears that they would not have an adverse effect on the aircraft's CG.

Continuing along the line of the Experimental aircraft and the folks flying them I would suggest that the next line of defense would be to address the requirement actually separate ones body from the aircraft. For this I believe that some effort could be put into a reliable and positive means of separating the canopy from the airframe with a minimum of effort. As experimental designers and builders I believe that this is certainly within the scope of what has been done and certainly could be done to most of the RV airframes should it be desired.

Once the crew is clear of the airframe there are several good parachute systems on the market that could be used to safely get back to Terra firma. A day or two at the local skydiving center would give most users the training, information, and confidence to fly the parachute and probably be in better condition that if they had ridden the airframe down under canopy.

Keep in mind that once the BRS is deployed the aircraft most likely will belong to the insurance company anyway so there is no need to reduce damage to it anyway.


As an alternative the user / builder may want to consider one of the very good egress systems out there from Marin Baker or UTC (Ex Goodrich) ACES II or 5.

Martin Baker - Mk17 Ultra Lightweight Escape System
http://www.martin-baker.com/products/ejection-seats/mk17

Just some random thoughts on some of the means to get home safely.
 
That Martin Baker ejection seat is pretty neat, for sure, but I doubt it would fit any of the RVs. And it weighs over 81 pounds each, not counting the pyro-powered canopy jettison system (which hasn't been designed or tested yet) you'd need.

Still, if you had an airplane designed for it, it would provide a nice measure of security, assuming your back survives it.

Dave
 
saved

My uncle was saved by one of these in his Cirrus. Speaks volumes to me. From the above linked page, here is his. The airplane was eventually repaired and flew again too.


CAPS event #27, 30 September 2010, Mathias, WV

2 uninjured; (CAPS Save #22) - Factors: loss of control in turbulence while on approach in stormy weather, Activation: 1134 AGL, 171 KIAS; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees, remarkably the plane wedged itself on branches about 20 feet above the ground, pilot and passenger were injured when they attempted self-rescue and fell onto rocks below
 
Two Cirrus chute saves in the last 24 hours. No doubt two lives saved today in that midair in Fredrick MD. The streak of "everybody lived" continues.
2me4tp3.jpg
[/IMG]
nwcvgk.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Back
Top