BRS for RV-12

[Buzz J]

I'm interested, depending on cost, attachment and related issues..

[Phantom30]

Originally Posted by Bill_H

Sure! I'll estimate ~$13,000-$15,000! Could be more, bet its not less. Then $10,000 every few years to replace the rocket. Is there trade-in value of the "stale" rocket or do you just take it out and set it off for 4th of July?

For that price...install explosive bolts on the canopy and mount an ejection cushion (Abby @ FightLine has them cheap).....

Sorry guys, I find this funny. I got no plans on my -12 fallen out of the sky!

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by Bill_H

Sure! I'll estimate ~$13,000-$15,000! Could be more, bet its not less. Then $10,000 every few years to replace the rocket. Is there trade-in value of the "stale" rocket or do you just take it out and set it off for 4th of July?

Repacks are typically 5 to 10 years; our 1350 high speed used in the CT was about $1k. Rockets have 10 year lifespans and are <$1k. That is still in line with what BRS quotes.

TODR

[Flying Griff]

Just wanted to confirm I have no plans for my RV12 falling out of the sky either! But I understand why, for some, a BRS is not appealing.
We will be taking into account the tank position in the design. From BRS info:
"Solid fuel motors have a flame, but this is not the problem some imagine for two reasons; one simple, one more complex. With an extremely high departure velocity in the first tenth of a second, the flame is gone before it can cause problems. The more complex explanation involves a pressure front set up by the ignited fuel. The main content of the rocket?s exhaust is water vapor and non-flammable gases. These expand so rapidly that they will literally push away fuel fumes before they can get warm enough to ignite.
For anything mounted closer than 16?, an additional ?blast? shield of Lexan?, aluminum, fiberglass, or even wood should be considered to protect from the rocket plume as it departs."
The Aviation Consumer article I mentioned quoted LSA BRS kits from $4.5K to $6.9K and adding 33+ lbs weight. The attachment / install kit currently available for the RV7/9 is $3.5K. Re-pack cycles / costs as described by Doug's post above.

[RFSchaller]

Griff,

My BRS-1050 tipped the scales at 30 lbs.

The fuel tank in the cockpit is one aspect of the RV-12 design I have never liked. I understand why they did it, and as long as everything is normal there is no issue. My concern stems from having that much fuel in the cockpit in the event of a mishap. I have lesser concerns about leakage and potential damage from something in the baggage area.

The main spar would be an obvious spot to attach a BRS lanyard, and the baggage area might be a good location for the chute, but again, the tank location might be subject to damage from the lanyard deployment.

Just an opinion, but I wish wing tanks had been an option.

Rich

[J.Coles]

Hey Rich,

I reckon there might be an argument that the fuel tank is less likely to rupture in the fuselage than the wings.

I think the main problem with a BRS is weight. You build a plane to go places. Now that I am going places I am discovering that what Vans said about weight is true. Don't think that once you chuck in a 30lb mod that you will have 20lbs left for your luggage. Tie downs, covers, life jackets, oil, spares, ipads, the list goes on.

You will need to be real careful with any other extras you add. You don't want to have start leaving fuel behind.

Cheers

Julian 120316

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by J.Coles

I think the main problem with a BRS is weight. You build a plane to go places. Now that I am going places I am discovering that what Vans said about weight is true. Don't think that once you chuck in a 30lb mod that you will have 20lbs left for your luggage. Tie downs, covers, life jackets, oil, spares, ipads, the list goes on.

I'm convinced that the holy grail empty weight for LSAs is 705 lb, mostly because that's what my old airplane weighed and we never left fuel or stuff behind. 34 gal powers the 912S for a long time....

TODR

[RFSchaller]

OK, prepare my tar and feathers, but here it comes:

1350 lbs is a legal requirement and excludes the weight of safety features (I.e. BRS). If the engineering design supports greater than 1350 gross you could still be legal as an LSA if the gross without the BRS did not exceed 1350 lbs. In my test program I confirmed acceptable performance at 1400 lbs for peace of mind. I'm not condoning it, but I'm glad I did it.

It would be nice if Vans provided data for tests done above 1350 lbs if they did them.

[RFSchaller]

Sorry, I meant 1320, not 1350 lbs!

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by RFSchaller

OK, prepare my tar and feathers, but here it comes:

1350 lbs is a legal requirement and excludes the weight of safety features (I.e. BRS). If the engineering design supports greater than 1350 gross you could still be legal as an LSA if the gross without the BRS did not exceed 1350 lbs. In my test program I confirmed acceptable performance at 1400 lbs for peace of mind. I'm not condoning it, but I'm glad I did it.

It would be nice if Vans provided data for tests done above 1350 lbs if they did them.

The airplane was designed for a gross weight of 1320 from the very beginning.
Designing for any higher would require heavier structure, which would increase empty weight, which would decrease useful load...etc. etc.

Because it was designed for 1320, all of the testing was done for 1320.