What's new
Van's Air Force

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

BRS (Chute) in RV-10 (Please no religous debate)

B

bgrandorff

Active Member
Okay, this is NOT intended as a religious debate, whether you agree a plane should have a BRS or not ;-) Let's leave that for other threads...

I'm curious if anyone has successfully installed a BRS in an RV-10? I've
seen a few folks mention they intended to, or were considering...but so far can't seem to find anyone who actually completed?

Any comments?
 
Hi Brad....

.....and welcome.

One of the problems was about how to run the suspension lines to the firewall. Obviously, the Cirrus guys run them under the outer fiberglass skins which get ripped open on deployment, suspending the airplane from the firewall anchor points and behind the baggage area. Kinda hard to do with the -10 skins,

Regards,
 
pierre smith said:
.....and welcome.

One of the problems was about how to run the suspension lines to the firewall. Obviously, the Cirrus guys run them under the outer fiberglass skins which get ripped open on deployment, suspending the airplane from the firewall anchor points and behind the baggage area. Kinda hard to do with the -10 skins,

Regards,
Click to expand...

You could easily make channels on top of the the canopy and above the front part of the fuselage. You would just have to find somebody good at body work to blend them in. A plastic airplane guy would be good at this.
 
I seem to recall someone modified a 6 with a BRS. If I remember correctly it was silver in colour. Anyone ?
 
Hi Brad,

This guy (http://rvparachutes.com ) put one in an RV7A. Lots of external fairing work to cover up the bridles/cables which resulted in some strange looking carbunkles on his plane along with a tremendous amount of extra work, time, effort and fabrication. I don't know if they ever actually tested one on a similar airframe to an RV or not. Best get hold of the guy and get answers from him directly. Just a warning, I'm not sure you'll see a ton of positive feedback about going down that path.

I'll stay out of the can/could - shall/should - is it worth the time/effort, etc... I think my thoughts on the subject are duly noted somewhere else in the archives! :)

Best Regards,
Stein
 
Chutes

The fellow who put one in an RV-6 is Charles Stuhrenberg [chuck <at> sprayshield.com].

Surprise! He is building an RV-10 now and putting in a BRS chute. Email me offline (tdt <at> aurora.aero) and I will share some pics he sent me.

Surprise Surprise! We are installing a ballistic chute, too, but not a BRS. Ours is a Magnum chute from the Czech Republic. Just Google "Magnum Ballistic Chute" and you should get the US distributor. We are in the midst of engineering it right now. I can send some photos of it so far, too, which is mostly the pieces in the hangar. This system is two chutes deployed by one rocket.

I think for one attach point, we will bolt a flange onto the spar using the spar bolts, and attach the parachute riser to that flange. Front mount is going to be trickier . . .

TDT
 
Maximum deployment speed will be an issue. Each BRS model has a different deployment speed, but IIRC, they are mostly around 145kt max. Clearly the RV-10 will exceed this normal cruise flight.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Maximum deployment speed will be an issue. Each BRS model has a different deployment speed, but IIRC, they are mostly around 145kt max. Clearly the RV-10 will exceed this normal cruise flight.

TODR
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that since the SR-22 and SR-22 Turbo, which also have BRS, are faster than the RV10, that should not be an issue.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Max deployment speed for the SR20/22 is 133kt IAS.

TODR
Click to expand...

OK, but my point was that to achieve anywhere near those speeds (or cruise speeds), you would have to be generating more than 50% power. If you assume that power is pulled out and any drag producing devices deployed prior to pulling the chute, you will be well below these speeds, so why mention it?

If you are in normal cruise, you would not be considering deploying the chute, so why mention it?

The SR-22, which has a chute, has a faster cruise speed than the RV-10 so why mention it?
the_other_dougreeves said:
Maximum deployment speed will be an issue. ....Clearly the RV-10 will exceed this normal cruise flight.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm trying to find the issue that you see.

bgrandorff said:
Okay, this is NOT intended as a religious debate, whether you agree a plane should have a BRS or not ;-) Let's leave that for other threads...
Click to expand...
 
w1curtis said:
OK, but my point was that to achieve anywhere near those speeds (or cruise speeds), you would have to be generating more than 50% power. If you assume that power is pulled out and any drag producing devices deployed prior to pulling the chute, you will be well below these speeds, so why mention it?

If you are in normal cruise, you would not be considering deploying the chute, so why mention it?

The SR-22, which has a chute, has a faster cruise speed than the RV-10 so why mention it?
I guess I'm trying to find the issue that you see.
Click to expand...
I guess I see reasons to pull the BRS when at cruise speed or higher. It'd be great if you have time to slow the airplane down, but you might not have it. We have been told that ideally, you want to get the airplane to about 50kt before pulling the jiffy-pop.

Examples of situations where one (me, anyway) flying the RV-10 might want to deploy the chute above 133kt IAS:
  • Sudden structural failure with resulting loss of control
  • Spatial disorientation in IMC with increasing airspeed (presumably coupled with some type of instrument failure)
  • Pilot incapication and/or pax activation of BRS
  • Midair (see structural failure)
  • Loss of control surface or jamming of controls in non-level flight with increasing airspeed
  • Birdstrike shattering canopy in cruise or descent with accompanying loss of vision or serious injury to pilot
  • Aerobatics gone wrong (yes the -10 isn't aerobatic, but people have been known to do aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes and don't always do them well)
I mentioned the SR-22 because it has the same parachute system as the (slower) SR-20. Max deployment speed for the SR20 is also 133kt IAS.

In our CT, the max BRS activation speed at 145kt IAS, which is also the Vne. The CT's BRS has been successfully demonstrated at well above that (test pilot after he sheared the wings off at around 9g and 165kt :eek:), but 145kt is the published max. Given that the CT has to work hard to get anywhere above 130kt, it's nice to know that we can pull the BRS in basically any attitude and speed.

FWIW, the BRS specs for various systems has the max deployment speeds for the 172 and 182 systems at 162 and 135kt, respectively. Not sure why the 172 is 162kt and the 182 is only 135kt, might have to do with weight.

TODR
 
w1curtis said:
OK, but my point was that to achieve anywhere near those speeds (or cruise speeds), you would have to be generating more than 50% power. If you assume that power is pulled out and any drag producing devices deployed prior to pulling the chute, you will be well below these speeds, so why mention it?

If you are in normal cruise, you would not be considering deploying the chute, so why mention it?

The SR-22, which has a chute, has a faster cruise speed than the RV-10 so why mention it?
I guess I'm trying to find the issue that you see.
Click to expand...

How about loss of control in IMC?...one of the reasons promoted by many people (and Cirrus sales people) for having the BRS system. Pulling power to idle after a control loss in IMC will not necessarily produce a speed reduction.
 
It has to be weight for the different deployment speeds.

It doesn't take much to slow a -10 if you want. Cut power and hit the flaps, and a slip. I would imagine the flaps will survive one overspeed deployment.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
How about loss of control in IMC?...one of the reasons promoted by many people (and Cirrus sales people) for having the BRS system. Pulling power to idle after a control loss in IMC will not necessarily produce a speed reduction.
Click to expand...

An answer in search of a question. What is the question? Should this question be put to Cirrus? The report at least one save of this very type you mention.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
How about loss of control in IMC?...one of the reasons promoted by many people (and Cirrus sales people) for having the BRS system. Pulling power to idle after a control loss in IMC will not necessarily produce a speed reduction.
Click to expand...

IIRC there have been at least 7 loss of control in IMC pulls (2 of these due to pilot incapacitation) and one night VMC high altitude loss of control, all successful.

There was one possible pull in IMC over the Sierras that was unsuccessful. The pilot reported icing at 16000' and descended well above Vne according to radar data. The chute was found separated from the airframe, but it's unclear whether there was a pull or an inflight structural failure. It's noteworthy in that accident that the pilot elected to launch into an icing sigmet over mountainous terrain in a normally aspirated piston single without FIKI approval

There was another IMC/icing upset in Alabama at 9000' that resulted in no injuries (three on board).

One pull was due to pilot disorientation probably related to water in the static system on a low IFR departure. (Successful)

One pull was after a high-altitude IMC upset in convective activity over mountains. The pilot was trying to sort out the loss of control when the TAWS system said "terrain, terrain" and he immediately pulled the big red handle. Apparently he hit the ground seconds later (uninjured).

One very interesting pull was in IMC after the pilot and sole occupant had a seizure due to an undiagnosed brain tumor. He awoke confused, in a dive over the airplane's Vne at low altitude (he had been on an approach). He pulled the parachute and realized as he descended below the clouds that he might land in a refinery. He used the still running engine and rudder to maneuver over water. He was well out of the parachute's certified envelope, although he was probably light which would have helped.

The maximum deployment speed is probably very conservative.
 
TSwezey said:
It has to be weight for the different deployment speeds.

It doesn't take much to slow a -10 if you want. Cut power and hit the flaps, and a slip. I would imagine the flaps will survive one overspeed deployment.
Click to expand...
If it were to work like the SR's, the plane is toast after deployment so the over speed won't really matter, if everything stays in one piece.

BTW, the SR-20/22's don't have a very good safety record. Lots of accidents per hour for some unknown reason. We had two in the Charlotte, NC area that went in while on approach. No BRS deployment in either case.

The current theory is that pilots continue flights into bad weather/terrain because they feel like they have an ?out?. No one really knows.

Put one in, it would be a good mod. Check with Van?s to find out how much the FG cabin top is part of the structure. You may be able to cut into it and bury the risers with a very thin layer of FG to cover it.
 
N941WR said:
BTW, the SR-20/22's don't have a very good safety record. Lots of accidents per hour for some unknown reason. We had two in the Charlotte, NC area that went in while on approach. No BRS deployment in either case.

.
Click to expand...

This is a very common myth that dates to the first couple of years of production. The current fleet lifetime accident rate of SR2x aircraft is estimated at 1.56/100K hours.

The current rate for all piston singles (Nall report) is 1.86/100K hours.

Some aircraft (e.g. 172) have better records, some have worse. Interestingly, late model 182s (the ones produced at the same time as the Cirri) have a much worse accident rate than older 182s.

Cirri tend to have a very high IFR utilization rate. You can go to flightaware right now and compare the number of Cirri airborne (put of 4000 or so flying) to the number of some other comparable airplane, like a BE33/35.

Given Cirrus's emphasis on safety, the mediocre rate is disappointing, but they certainly don't have a higher rate than the typical GA single.
 
interesting how the minute someone mentioned something controversial like BRS, the thread very rapidly nearly doubled in size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top