BRS Parachute in RV-14

[dodge427]

Hi all

I realize this was asked a couple of years back but the thread seemed to diverge a little.

I don't want to start a debate about a parachutes worth, success rate, or the misconception a good pilot doesn't need one, etc etc etc

I'd specifically like to know if anyone has installed one in a RV-14/14a?

If so what was the effect on CG? Where was it placed? And what was the logistics of mounting it in an aesthetically pleasing fashion?

Also if anyone's gone down this road before and decided against it, please chime in.

Cheers

Dan

[Randy]

You might check with the Glasair folks. They offer a retrofit option for the Glastar Sportsman at around $37,000... Could be some information that can transfer.

Interesting read in one of the recent magazines about the lack of success that Cirrus had until they got serious about educating the pilots about when to use the system. "Pull Early, Pull Often" is their motto. It is kind of hard to argue with their track record since they implemented their education program, going from nearly double the fatality rate to half.

[Canadian_JOY]

The Sportsman installation costs about 70 lbs of useful load. The 'chute is mounted behind the aft cargo area bulkhead, so quite far aft. With the Sportsman, one wants to build it so the empty CofG is right at or even slightly forward of the max forward CofG since everything you put in the airplane shifts the CofG aft. That parachute REALLY shifts the CofG aft.

The net effect is that a Sportsman with the parachute may have to load significantly below gross weight in order not to have a loaded CofG that's too far aft.

[czechsix]

I spent quite a bit of time last year thinking about putting a BRS in the -14. I emailed BRS with some questions and they responded that they'd get back to me with answers but then they never followed up. I don't think their -7/9 installation has been a commercial success so they probably don't want to bother supporting an RV-14 installation.

Based on my own research I quickly reached the conclusion that I didn't want to put the BRS in the aft fuselage the way it's installed in a Cirrus or RV-7/9. Even if you use the IO-390 and Hartzell, putting that much weight back in the tailcone significantly reduces the ability to carry a decent amount of baggage without running out of aft CG. And if you want to do things to save weight (to offset the weight penalty of the BRS), the easiest place to start is by using a Whirlwind (or other composite) prop and replacing the Odyssey PC680 with an EarthX lithium battery. But both of these changes will move the CG even further aft, exacerbating the problem.

So I started thinking about trying to fit the BRS under the forward top skin (above the rudder pedals and aft of the firewall). Lacking input from BRS I started with measurements from the RV-7/9 system and scaled them up for the higher gross weight of the -14. It became clear that fitting it into the forward fuselage was going to be very difficult...might be possible if BRS was willing to create a tray and mounting system specific to the -14. It might intrude into the area where it would interfere with some deep avionics boxes such as a Garmin GTN. Other stuff like audio panels and displays would probably not interfere. It might also require modification of the tip-up canopy hinge/strut on at least one side (again depending on specifics of how it gets packaged). Another concern I had was about removing part of the structure of the top front skin to provide a cover that would be blown off to extract the chute. I asked Ryan at Vans about it and he did not think it would be a problem but he did note that the fuselage drop tests were all done with the front skin installed, and he couldn't guarantee those tests would still pass if that part of the structure was opened up.

There are several big advantages of mounting the BRS in the forward fuselage (if it would fit). First of all it completely resolves the CG issues. You can use whatever prop, battery, and other options you want without any problem. Another big benefit is aesthetics. Personally I think the RV-7/9 installation looks terrible...you've got these clunky external fiberglass channels running lengthwise down the side of the fuselage and over the turtledeck. With the the forward fuselage location on the -14, you would still need an external channel running from the firewall straight back to a point just aft of the rollbar, but I think you could avoid the part that runs up over the turtledeck by routing cables inside the baggage compartment (which would presumably rip out the plexiglass aft window in a deployment). In the front you could route the harness just under the cowl to both top engine mount hardpoints. I could live with the aesthetics of an installation like this.

In the end I looked at the amount of time it would take to engineer and fabricate all this stuff, not to mention the cost (up front and to repack the chute periodically) and the weight penalty of the installation and I gave up on the idea. It would be much easier if Vans and/or BRS would support such an installation as part of the kit, but if it looks like the -7/9 installation a lot of people won't use it on aesthetic grounds alone. It becomes a kluge with lots of compromises if it's not designed for the chute from the outset...

[Polar]

I know the intent isn't to start a pro/con debate regarding chutes, but I know a fellow who's alive because of the chute in his Cirrus. If it can be implemented someway in a 14, I'm all ears.

Tagged for interest.