BRS Chute Installation for RV10

[Auburntsts]

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.

[rocketman1988]

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...

[OkieDave]

Originally Posted by KatanaPilot

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.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by OkieDave

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.

[cccjbr6]

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.

[fr0gpil0t]

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

[N402RH]

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

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by N402RH

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

The problem with statistics like this is that there is no way of knowing if the lives were really saved from death, or if they would have survived anyway. Go back two posts. Someone pulled the chute because one aileron was not connected following maintenance. The other one was functioning okay, and they likely could have returned safely without the chute. But one never knows. Certainly, pilot incapacitation is a real save, but some of the others? And I wonder, how many Cirrus's failed to clear a tree, or went off the end of the runway, because of the extra weight of the chute? Hard to say. But when I look at the accident record, one thing looks clear IMHO: the chute makes for bolder pilots.

[David Paule]

Originally Posted by cccjbr6

....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....

This appears to be incorrect. Look up the midair collision in Boulder, CO, a few years ago, between a Cirrus and a towplane. The Cirrus descended under canopy, on fire, with no survivors. I saw the video.

Dave

[OkieDave]

Originally Posted by David Paule

This appears to be incorrect. Look up the midair collision in Boulder, CO, a few years ago, between a Cirrus and a towplane. The Cirrus descended under canopy, on fire, with no survivors. I saw the video.

Dave

While technically correct, I don't think it's fair to charge that failure-to-save to the chute.