What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Did anyone see the BRS chute for RV-7 / 9 at Oshkosh?

WB-avl

Active Member
I would have checked it out had I known.

I just came across this press release:

BRS AEROSPACE ANNOUNCES INNOVATIVE SAFETY PARACHUTE FOR VANS RV-7 and RV-9 SERIES AIRCRAFT

South St. Paul, MN, July 25, 2013 ? BRS Aerospace is pleased to announce the availability of a BRS whole-airframe emergency recovery system for the Vans RV-7 and RV-9. The bag deployed system meets the ASTM Standard F 2316-12 for recovery parachutes. The unit is stowed in a specially designed frame suspended from structural aluminum angles spanning the upper aircraft longerons on each side of the aircraft on the back side of the aft baggage bulkhead. It deploys out of the right side of the fuselage behind the wing and angled upwards.

?We are very excited to release this installation to the Vans Aircraft market,? says BRS Aerospace CEO, Larry E. Williams. ?We listened to the customer base and responded?. Our most frequently request for an installation is on a Vans Aircraft ? BRS Aerospace answered with the installation kit you see today that incorporates key features to allow the kit builder to perform the installation. ?I am very proud of our designers and engineers who crafted such a well-thought out solution for the Vans RV-7 and -9,? Mr. Williams added.

BRS Aerospace will display the RV-9 installation on a fuselage at its booth during EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh next week.

Since 1981, BRS has delivered more than 30,000 parachute systems to aircraft owners worldwide, including over 3,500 systems on FAA-certificated aircraft. To date, BRS parachute recovery systems have been credited with saving the lives of 299 pilots and passengers. To promote this new installation, BRS Aerospace is offering a corresponding $299 discount to customers who place an order and put down a deposit on the system during AirVenture.

The installation kit for the RV-7/9 series is now offered for sale with a lead-time of approximately 6-8 weeks after placement of the order.

They also have a picture of the install.

http://brsparachutes.com/pressreleases.aspx
 
Yep (I'm based at South St. Paul - home of the BRS folks actually - and have seen this a couple of times).

Ask them if they've ever tested it. Their answer is probably not what you might expect.
 
I'm assuming that it has not been tested in a Vans aircraft. -Which does reduce the value of the system.

I have requested more info from them.

I have flown a Cirrus a good bit and I have come to believe that the parachute can be a good idea.

Just curious about the RV install- weight, cg change, etc.
 
I saw it

I too fly a Cirrus and would be interested in a good chute installation. It weighs a tad over 40 lbs. it uses a pretty obvious system of adhering a strap cavity to the airframe that they did a fair job of disguising by using the right paint selections. They have not tested it other than ground deployments.

They need to do some real testing. Other little workable problems are they have straps and lots of metal around an area we builders often put EFIS equipment or antennas. It's weight and location will be an issue (more or less depending on each planes equipment) and, there is no way to say this nicely, the installation will hurt aesthetic's.

A typical RV is going to take something on the order of a 6% hit on useful load and it is pretty far back (just behind the baggage compartment bulkhead and takes up space to the next one). If you have a forward CG, that might be attractive but if you don't it will aggravate a already aft CG plane.


I'm assuming that it has not been tested in a Vans aircraft. -Which does reduce the value of the system.

I have requested more info from them.

I have flown a Cirrus a good bit and I have come to believe that the parachute can be a good idea.

Just curious about the RV install- weight, cg change, etc.
 
I got a chance to see it under development at the factory a few months ago, and Roger hit most of the high points I'd make. I actually think that the glass channel that they were laying out to hide the straps could be cleverly hidden in the paint scheme pretty effectively - better than I originally envisioned.

Everyone does their own risk/cost trades when they build and equip an airplane, and no doubt, for some this would make the cut, so having it as an available option for those folks certainly doesn't hurt those for whom it doesn't. It will certainly reduce useful load and affect CG.

Paul
 
What condition would require a chute other than a pilot completely giving up or wings that are totally iced over?
 
After seeing it, I think Paul is right that it could be disguised fairly easily with the right paint scheme. Likewise, I imagine you could glass a smoother transition over the lines as well, which would make them less obvious. Having the option for a chute is fantastic I think. I know some people think parachutes don't belong in airplanes and that pilots should just continue to fly the plane to the ground, but faced with a dead engine over rough terrain and a slim chance of survivability in a crash, I wouldn't mind having the option. I suppose I'd think differently if primarily flying over fields or road grids all day.

The weight and cg consequences of the thing is the only part that disappoints me. But if that could be worked through then I'd consider it. I think the price was pretty steep though. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
What condition would require a chute other than a pilot completely giving up or wings that are totally iced over?

I assume that this will not help an aircraft in an unusual attitude, or a spin for example. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't see it being much help in an inverted spin for example.
 
I suppose it could improve your survival chances with an engine failure over rugged terrain or at night. You wouldn't have any choice on how big of a rock you'd come crashing down on.

It looked pretty well built to me. My notes said it weighed about 40 lbs. and cost over $10,000. Everyone has their own cost/benefit analysis to do.

For now, I'll pass.
 
What does it take to deploy it? Hopefully the chances of accidental deployment are equal to or less than the chances of accidental airbag deployment in my car on the freeway.
 
Personally I'd rather have those air bags that are built into the seatbelt/harness like my friend's 2008 C182T. But the last time I asked the AmSafe folks at Oshkosh, they have no plans for providing them to homebuilt aircraft anytime soon.

If I were an entrepreneur, I think I would design and market them to the experimental market. Anyone?
 
So much we don't know...

Because this installation is not tested you could never know, the first user will be a test pilot. The Cirrus chute was tested in spins, inverted, etc... So we do know how it will perform. We do not know how this side deployed one will work without actual testing.

Not to let this degrade into a never ending chute debate that non believers will never buy, the fact is there are many examples in real life situations that the chute saved lives. Examples that have happened:

- a debilitating brain issue that caused the pilot to black out.
- inadvertent spins.
- engine failures over hostile terrain or water.
- instrument failure in IMC.
- midair collision.

There are about 40 Cirrus deployment saves and almost a 100 people that are alive today because of it. There are more in other types, by BRS's count several 100. Too many macho types dismiss the chute, but the data is pretty compelling if you look at it objectively.

The facts are that a under control forced landing executed perfectly still carries an order of magnitude more energy potential than the energy under the chute. Speed kills. Deployed within design parameters chutes have saved lives, whether it is a ultralight, a Cirrus or one of the STC'ed installations.

That said, I am not interested in this one, at least not in its current state.


I assume that this will not help an aircraft in an unusual attitude, or a spin for example. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't see it being much help in an inverted spin for example.
 
chute install

The install I saw looked pretty clean, considering what they need to do. The BRS systems have saved a lot of lives, that's for sure, both in Cirrus aircraft and in lots of ultralights.

I understand parachutes and ejection seats were considered to be "only for wimps" when they were released. Pilots also resisted enclosed cockpits in the early days. We're not really quick to embrace change.
 
Added to the cost is the budgeted repacking or inspection of the system.
Some one mentioned a mid air... You might not make it..

I believe if you fly IFR in single engine aircraft or at night IFR or night VFR over mountains a good portion of your total time, this is a viable option to consider.

Below a couple thousand feet above the ground, the chutes are probable worthless especially when you look at the articles of accidents involving Cirrus aircraft that have crashed while below 1000 feet.

You have to be trained to instinctually to pull the chute and avoid the normal reaction to fly the aircraft and resolve the problem. This is not an ejection seat
Jack
 
Photos of the BRS Installation on the RV-7A at Oshkosh

Here are a couple of photos of the BRS installation.

a>


a>
 
BRS at Osh

Thanks for those pics Jack. I didn't see that 7-A at Osh.

What I DID see was BRS in their booth in one of the hangars, where they had a 7/9 fuselage (no wings, no empennage, no FWF, no gear) set up and showing their solution. It was not completely unlike your pictures, with the following differences:

The front strap attach point was at the firewall (like in your pics), but the strap was faired along the side of the fuse rather than apparently traveling through the wing root in your pics.

The fairing for the straps was a bit different. Less "rounded" and more square and trim. They didn't have it finished/painted, so final appearance not evident, but like others have said, it looked like it could be well hidden with a good paint scheme.

The 7A in your pics appears to have a side discharge out of the baggage compartment area, whereas at the BRS booth it was side discharge out of the fuse behind the baggage bulkhead. The solution in your pics may help with CofG issues, but use baggage space.

It's not really evident from your pics, but at the BRS booth the rear attach point for the straps was to a bulkhead behind the main baggage bulkhead (they wanted it back far enough not to interfere with a slider mechanism). It attached centrally to the top of the bulkhead, but then had stringers in a triangle to tie it into the two bottom corners of the bulkhead as well, along with some beefy looking attach points added at the bottom corners.

I'm wondering if your pics of the 7A is someone's "home brewed" version of installing the chute, and BRS is now looking at providing a kit for a "standard" installation? I think I saw pics quite awhile ago of a 6 that someone had installed a chute on as well?

I have no editorial comment on the usefulness/need of a chute. I'll leave that to others with the time/desire to enter into it. ;)
 
I spoke with the BRS guys for a few minutes this year, The pictures above are of the first BRS to be installed in an RV and yes it is a "home brew" type system. The BRS guys did have some involvement in the install but it is not their design. Their design seems much more elegant and can be hidden much easier however when we discussed the weight of the system and the location I do not believe they will have an abundance of sales. At 42 pounds and mounted behind the Aft Bulkhead, you would have to build the aircraft with a forward CG to accomadate the system as well as any additional baggage you would want to take.

I am 100% on board with adding the system if the airframe allows it, IE Cirrus, it has saved many lives and will save many more in the future, however I feel if the airframe is not designed around the system then it is very hard to implement the system and make it work.
 
42 pounds in the tail?!? Yeah, that won't be a CG nightmare for an airplane that already tends to bias aft.
 
NACA duct

I know it's a nit, but the engineer in me thinks it's a shame to have a NACA duct (aka NACA inlet) right behind those bulges in the skin. At cruise speed, the boundary layer has to be displaced and the efficiency of the NACA duct must be adversely affected. Just observin'! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
That's not what the data says

In all cases a cirrus deployed the chute UNDER CONTROL at or slightly below 500 feet it was totally effective. It is true that because the deployment cycle takes time if you deploy low in a LOC situation it will not save you. The 8 seconds it takes to fully deploy is more time than you have in a spin at 500 feet.

Totally true on the need to do it quickly if it has any chance to work.

Below a couple thousand feet above the ground, the chutes are probable worthless especially when you look at the articles of accidents involving Cirrus aircraft that have crashed while below 1000 feet.

You have to be trained to instinctually to pull the chute and avoid the normal reaction to fly the aircraft and resolve the problem. This is not an ejection seat
Jack
 
I haven't seen a retrofit in any market that didn't look like cr*p. Good to see that this one lives up to the same standards. Ouch.

Maybe if it were designed in from the get-go, as on the Cirrus, it would be workable. But I'd still rather have the 42lb for baggage, or better yet, fuel!
 
Airplanes fly based on physical fact, not opinion. Will someone please fire up their W&B spreadsheet and tell us what the installation does to preflight planning...starting CG, baggage and fuel capacity, CG when fuel burned off?

At first glance (opinion!) it looks rather impractical.
 
Last edited:
In all cases a cirrus deployed the chute UNDER CONTROL at or slightly below 500 feet it was totally effective. It is true that because the deployment cycle takes time if you deploy low in a LOC situation it will not save you. The 8 seconds it takes to fully deploy is more time than you have in a spin at 500 feet.

Totally true on the need to do it quickly if it has any chance to work.

Recently there was a Cirrus with a BRS chute that failed to deploy.

Ironically the plane landed fine. :eek:
 
Yes, one could opin

That he didn't need to pull the chute, but as always there is more to the story. The pilot reported severe P Static (lost comms) and loss of instruments in IMC conditions. That is a serious situation with high potential for a tragic outcome. Fortunately he kept it together and was able to land the plane. While any one of us could say he should have at least tried to fly out of the situation before deployment, we weren't there. He did an IMC dive with limited avionics to VMC conditions. Had he lost control in that situation he could have exceeded the chutes useful parameters. I am glad he is alive, the airplane is secondary. A NTSB investigation is underway and we (COPA - read below for more) are a party to that investigation.

I should disclose some background here that is relevant (hasn't been up till now). I am building a RV7A now (very far along) and why I am here in this forum, but I am also a Cirrus SR22 pilot - proud owner since 2001 - and I have lots of hours in the plane. I am also Vice President and on the Board of Directors of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA). And I teach at their proficient pilot program. I like all things that fly. We have training programs like most type clubs but we also track Chute use very closely, so I am very familiar with each deployment. There are a lot of old wives tales and strong opinions out there about the chute that is just plain wrong or out of context and used improperly. With my background and exposure to Cirrus Engineering along with other contacts I just cringe when I read a lot of what gets tossed around on aviation forums and in hangar flying. Much of it is pure BS to be frank. Data is what we should look at and there is a lot of it now.

I talk to many pilots who think the chute is not manly enough and that we would have inexperienced pilots popping them for no good reason when they got scared. Well, folks have died because they chose NOT to use the chute (quite a few actually). Either by overload (lock up and not deploy) or on purpose.

I know of two accidents where the pilots boasted to their friends they would never use the chute except in a midair and didn't. They died in the resulting off airport landing. Unfortunately they took loved ones with them that the Chute could have saved. Aviation can be dangerous, but the plane is replaceable. Lives are not.

The chute is just one more option. It does not replace training and it should not encourage a pilot to make a trip that he would not take if he didn't have it (ie increase risk tolerance). More people have died because they did not use the chute than have been saved by the chute. That saddens me. I would rather see some questionable deployments than see more funerals.

Recently there was a Cirrus with a BRS chute that failed to deploy.

Ironically the plane landed fine. :eek:
 
Skip all the "chute-no chute" argy bargy. What does this new chute package do to the RV-7 design?
 
With out doubt, there are times when the BRS would be advantageous. But if its a concern for you, then it's lighter, cheaper, and smarter to just wear a parachute and weigh out the chances of a successful egress versus a successful deployment of the BRS, along with the negatives that come with dragging the BRS along with you wherever you go.
 
brs_wb_bingo.jpg


Here's a quick hack at it. I'm not sure where I got the W&B spreadsheet, but the numbers are from my 9A (fixed pitch sensi, O-320).

I took a guess at the location of the BRS and went for 160" aft of datum. That's ~3ft aft of the baggage. Even with bingo fuel it's showing within limits.

If someone wants to try other numbers I'd be happy to punch them in and post.
 
Any idea on what the system will cost, as well as the yearly maintenance?

Here is a quote from Flying Magazine on the Cirrus system. I would imagine a somewhat smaller system, for a lighter aircraft, would be slightly less. Note that these costs do not include labor or the initial installation.

The bad thing about new technology is that it often comes at a cost. In this case, the parachute system needs to be replaced every 10 years. To its credit, Cirrus never made a secret of this fact. Moreover, the company always said that the replacement would be fairly costly and pegged that cost at around $10,000. Labor costs are extra, and will likely bring the overall replacement cost to more than $10,000 in most cases.


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Just curious - what's the reasoning for making this parachute system exit out the side of the aircraft instead of just rotating it in the same spot and having it exit out the top?
 
Just curious - what's the reasoning for making this parachute system exit out the side of the aircraft instead of just rotating it in the same spot and having it exit out the top?

Slider canopies have a canopy rail along the top of the fuse it can't go through.
 
BRS for non pilot passenger

I think one big benefit would be for a non pilot passenger who was given a good brief on how to deploy the BRS in the event of pilot incapacitation. A lot of us aren't spring chickens anymore in the pilot community so the possibility of becoming incapacitated is becoming greater and greater as we age. A non pilot would think a BRS was awesome when airborne with effectively no pilot.
 
As proven with the Cirrus, availability of a parachute option will likely make a "little" airplane a viable for some people or couples. Even if they can't carry more than 20 lbs of bags, I would imagine some are eagerly awaiting an RV with a BRS simply for the real or perceived added safety option.

Doubt there's one in my near future, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with them becoming available for others.
 
Back
Top