Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
BRS in an RV-8?
- Thread starter designerX
- Start date
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
I'm not aware of anyone that has put one in an RV-8(A).
As far as I know, the BRS for the RV-7 has never been tested, so it is a bit of an unknown how well it will work. The loads would be quite high if the chute opened at RV cruise speeds. If the chute were opened following some sort of in-flight failure, it is quite possible that the aircraft will be coming down hill and the speed would be even higher. Would the chute and aircraft structure be able to withstand the loads, or would they fail?
The rate of descent of a Cirrus under the chute is up to 1500 ft/mn according to the Cirrus POH (6.2 MB PDF). The Cirrus seats are specifically designed so that the occupants are not subjected to dangerous loads during an impact at 1500 ft/mn. What would happen to the backs of the occupants of that RV-7 if it hit the ground at 1500 ft/mn?
As a point of reference, the BRS on the Cirrus is only cleared for use at 135 KIAS or slower. RVs are flying at much higher speeds than that the vast majority of the time, except when in the traffic pattern. BRS deployment at typical traffic pattern altitudes might not leave enough time for the chute to deploy and then arrest the aircraft's rate of descent before it hits the ground.
Do you want something that you are confident will save your life, or are you just looking for a placebo? If the system has not been demonstrated to work under a wide range of conditions, then it is no more than a placebo as far as I am concerned. Worse, the presence of the BRS may suck you into situations that you wouldn't otherwise put yourself.
What are the situations where you envision using the BRS? Would you fly in these situations if you didn't have a BRS?
As far as I know, the BRS for the RV-7 has never been tested, so it is a bit of an unknown how well it will work. The loads would be quite high if the chute opened at RV cruise speeds. If the chute were opened following some sort of in-flight failure, it is quite possible that the aircraft will be coming down hill and the speed would be even higher. Would the chute and aircraft structure be able to withstand the loads, or would they fail?
The rate of descent of a Cirrus under the chute is up to 1500 ft/mn according to the Cirrus POH (6.2 MB PDF). The Cirrus seats are specifically designed so that the occupants are not subjected to dangerous loads during an impact at 1500 ft/mn. What would happen to the backs of the occupants of that RV-7 if it hit the ground at 1500 ft/mn?
As a point of reference, the BRS on the Cirrus is only cleared for use at 135 KIAS or slower. RVs are flying at much higher speeds than that the vast majority of the time, except when in the traffic pattern. BRS deployment at typical traffic pattern altitudes might not leave enough time for the chute to deploy and then arrest the aircraft's rate of descent before it hits the ground.
Do you want something that you are confident will save your life, or are you just looking for a placebo? If the system has not been demonstrated to work under a wide range of conditions, then it is no more than a placebo as far as I am concerned. Worse, the presence of the BRS may suck you into situations that you wouldn't otherwise put yourself.
What are the situations where you envision using the BRS? Would you fly in these situations if you didn't have a BRS?
Whiskey Charlie
Well Known Member
Whiskey Charlie
Well Known Member
Kevin Horton said:
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
This would be my concern with a BRS in a high performance RV such as the 8 - less so the -9. The existing models out there do not have the same performance envelope as many airplanes out there. Exceptions are the C172 and C182 systems, as well as the BRS systems for LSA, one of which was successfully deployed at 160 kt during flight test. So, the BRS would work in the -8 for engine out, pattern stall/spin and other types of lower speed accidents, but might not work for higher speed loss of control accidents due to the speed of the -8.Kevin Horton said:
IIRC, the main problem is getting the 'chute to deply slow enough so that it doesn't create excessive force. Haven't some of the Cirrus BRS deployments at high speed ripped the chute apart?
I currently fly an LSA and am glad that it has the BRS - it will function within the flight envelope of the airplane and, as proven by BRS save #100, 15 kt beyond VNE. It's not a panacea for a good airplane and good pilot, but in some cases, it makes sense. As a 85 hour pilot, I appreciate the extra layer of safety.
OldAndBold
Well Known Member
BRS' Response to my query...
I emailed BRS asking about getting their parachute for my 7A two weeks ago. Their response was to point me to Chucks' webpage. While I am impressed by Chuck's work, I would sort of expect a bit more from BRS in the way of a plan for using their product - I am not about to plunk down $8000 for something with no instructions.
--John Babrick
I emailed BRS asking about getting their parachute for my 7A two weeks ago. Their response was to point me to Chucks' webpage. While I am impressed by Chuck's work, I would sort of expect a bit more from BRS in the way of a plan for using their product - I am not about to plunk down $8000 for something with no instructions.
--John Babrick
Whiskey Charlie
Well Known Member
Talk to Greg at BRS.
He can get you in touch with the engineers that helped me.
You won't get much support from Vans, just like they give no support the alternative engines RV guys.
He can get you in touch with the engineers that helped me.
You won't get much support from Vans, just like they give no support the alternative engines RV guys.
Just to bring another perspective to this...
BRS (and parachutes in general) have performed very well in ultralights and LSA's. Especially in ultralights and hang gliders which are more prone to in-flight structural failure than most (don't all you ultralight pilots flame me...they're not unsafe but they do break more frequently than your typical Cessna or RV). Their record in GA has been hit or miss and I don't know of any low altitude stall/spin saves. There HAVE been saves though, so that's good, and there's even an in-cockpit video kicking around of a save after a midair. Any landing you can walk away from, right?
As far as engine failure I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of pilots would have a better outcome flying it to the ground than yanking the chute. I have no data to support this other than many pilots I know have had an engine failure at some point and they were okay vs. only a couple I know that had a bad day. Maybe the chute would have saved them...I don't know.
Flight into IMC, loss of control etc are all training and situtational awareness issues....maybe judgement issues. BRS is better than nothing, I guess.
If I had an unlimited $$$ and weight budget, sure....why wouldn't I want another layer of safety. For the money and the weight, though, I think I'd probably end up with a safer aircraft if I spent it on:
1) TIS
2) Panel with terrain awareness and moving map
3) Panel with weather.
Those account for 3 or 4 biggies: TIS and Weather help with loss of control due to IMC and mid-airs. Moving Map/Terrain awareness keep you out of cumulous granite (something the BRS doesn't help with) and certainly helps with engine-out...even at night. I'm always amazed when I hit the "nearest' airport feature and there always seems to be one pretty close by.
So I'm not for or against BRS, after all it IS your plane. As a practical matter, though, if you're on a budget or don't want to loose 38 lbs of useful load, my opinion is you get more bang for the buck in terms of real safety with an intelligently designed panel thats helps keep you out of trouble in the first place.
Anyhow, it's just another thing to think about in case anyone out there is trying to decide to spend the $$ on a BRS or a nicer panel.
BRS (and parachutes in general) have performed very well in ultralights and LSA's. Especially in ultralights and hang gliders which are more prone to in-flight structural failure than most (don't all you ultralight pilots flame me...they're not unsafe but they do break more frequently than your typical Cessna or RV). Their record in GA has been hit or miss and I don't know of any low altitude stall/spin saves. There HAVE been saves though, so that's good, and there's even an in-cockpit video kicking around of a save after a midair. Any landing you can walk away from, right?
As far as engine failure I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of pilots would have a better outcome flying it to the ground than yanking the chute. I have no data to support this other than many pilots I know have had an engine failure at some point and they were okay vs. only a couple I know that had a bad day. Maybe the chute would have saved them...I don't know.
Flight into IMC, loss of control etc are all training and situtational awareness issues....maybe judgement issues. BRS is better than nothing, I guess.
If I had an unlimited $$$ and weight budget, sure....why wouldn't I want another layer of safety. For the money and the weight, though, I think I'd probably end up with a safer aircraft if I spent it on:
1) TIS
2) Panel with terrain awareness and moving map
3) Panel with weather.
Those account for 3 or 4 biggies: TIS and Weather help with loss of control due to IMC and mid-airs. Moving Map/Terrain awareness keep you out of cumulous granite (something the BRS doesn't help with) and certainly helps with engine-out...even at night. I'm always amazed when I hit the "nearest' airport feature and there always seems to be one pretty close by.
So I'm not for or against BRS, after all it IS your plane. As a practical matter, though, if you're on a budget or don't want to loose 38 lbs of useful load, my opinion is you get more bang for the buck in terms of real safety with an intelligently designed panel thats helps keep you out of trouble in the first place.
Anyhow, it's just another thing to think about in case anyone out there is trying to decide to spend the $$ on a BRS or a nicer panel.
Last edited:
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this, as it pertains to pilot rig chutes, for a couple of reasons. First is the well-documented, well-debated question of whether you could get the canopy open and get out of many RV models in the first place. Flop over 4s, probably. Tip-ups, forget it. Slider 6/7/9, maybe, maybe not. 8s, probably.Bartman said:
Second, and more important: Following an in-flight structural failure, chances are that the forces involved will be so extreme that even if your canopy design allows, you will not be able to get out. Remember the rash of in-flight breakups that led to the grounding of T-34s a few years ago? Three crashes involving partial wing seperation. All 6 people on the 3 planes were wearing chutes, and all 6 rode them into the ground. This was in a ex-military trainer where parachutes and bailing out were considered in the design.
There are certain, limited circumstances where a pilot rig will allow you to live to fly another day. Sean Tucker's recent incident is a good example. But to say that they are a cure-all is misleading.
Whiskey Charlie
Well Known Member
My BRS 1800 is 38 lbs.(not 100 lbs)
My empty weight came in less than some other RV7As.
You can see my cg info at Dan's website: http://rvproject.com/wab/
My empty weight came in less than some other RV7As.
You can see my cg info at Dan's website: http://rvproject.com/wab/
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
The only reason I see to use the Jiffy Pop (as we have started calling it) in an engine failure situation are over water, hostile terrain or in an area where I have few landing choices, e.g., I can pull the chute over a small parking lot or try and land in a neighborhood. If the engine quits and I'm over reasonably decent terrain, I'll land it. For me, the parachute is for use when there is little to no chance of a landing without serious injuries - pulling the chute will damade the airplane at the least and landing under the chute can cause injuries of its own.jcoloccia said:
OldAndBold
Well Known Member
OK, who's gonna be the first to...
...to put an ejection seat in their RV? Pull the handles and it blows the canopy and pushes you out of airplane. Couple of small rocket motors in a lightweight aluminum chair pushes you out about twenty feet from the airplane where you can then pull your chute.
--John Babrick
...to put an ejection seat in their RV? Pull the handles and it blows the canopy and pushes you out of airplane. Couple of small rocket motors in a lightweight aluminum chair pushes you out about twenty feet from the airplane where you can then pull your chute.
--John Babrick
OldAndBold
Well Known Member
...better yet...
...better yet, just a seat on top of a big spring. Jettison the canopy and the seat bumps you fully out of the cockpit. Then open your chute.
--JCB
...better yet, just a seat on top of a big spring. Jettison the canopy and the seat bumps you fully out of the cockpit. Then open your chute. --JCB
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
"Hello, Mythbusters ? We'd like to borrow Buster for a little experiment ... what kind? Well, we're going to shoot him out of an RV with a parachute ... no, not that kind ... this afternoon? We'll be right over"mdredmond said:The better question is who's going to be the first to test it. Go ahead, I'll wait for you right here...
pierre smith
Well Known Member
The sky's falling...the sky's falling..
C'mon guys, lets get real. Airplane engines seldom "blow up" unless you help them do so, e.g. revving 2800 RPM continuous during an air race, running out of oil, gas and ideas at the same time.
Many of the emergency landings are the pilot's fault. One of our members forgot to tighten an oil line after he replaced the oil cooler. Another forgot to rivet the pushrod tube for the elevator ball end inserts....and on and on. These scenarios happened and caused engine failures because someone screwed up. BRS's seem to me a real placebo. How many structural failures have RV's had...count 'em on a couple fingers? How many busted their rears in IMC and cumulo-granite.
Someone mentioned stall-spin accidents in the pattern. Those usually happen from base to final and you'd be upside down in the ground before the 'chute popped. Why not get better at your airspeed control and pattern work. Overstress the structure? Get good aerobatic training and install a G-meter.
Know when to say "NO" if and when weather and or mechanical gremlins like a dead mag pop up. Don't fly. I've had both of those happen. Park the airplane, spend the night and live to tell about it. Don't look at a BRS as a way to save your butt if and when you screw up. Learn not to screw up.
Or do so less often.
Regards,
C'mon guys, lets get real. Airplane engines seldom "blow up" unless you help them do so, e.g. revving 2800 RPM continuous during an air race, running out of oil, gas and ideas at the same time.
Many of the emergency landings are the pilot's fault. One of our members forgot to tighten an oil line after he replaced the oil cooler. Another forgot to rivet the pushrod tube for the elevator ball end inserts....and on and on. These scenarios happened and caused engine failures because someone screwed up. BRS's seem to me a real placebo. How many structural failures have RV's had...count 'em on a couple fingers? How many busted their rears in IMC and cumulo-granite.
Someone mentioned stall-spin accidents in the pattern. Those usually happen from base to final and you'd be upside down in the ground before the 'chute popped. Why not get better at your airspeed control and pattern work. Overstress the structure? Get good aerobatic training and install a G-meter.
Know when to say "NO" if and when weather and or mechanical gremlins like a dead mag pop up. Don't fly. I've had both of those happen. Park the airplane, spend the night and live to tell about it. Don't look at a BRS as a way to save your butt if and when you screw up. Learn not to screw up.
Or do so less often.
Regards,
I should've know better than to start this thread...
Thanks for all the helpful replies.
I'm not sure why some builders get so defensive about not having a BRS. Yes, It's the absolute last resort. As soon as you mention a BRS many chime in on how the pilot should be able to land in all situations. No one plans to make you install a BRS, don't panic
Also... If Vans fuse kit came with a BRS installed I wonder how many of the anti-BRS individuals would remove it.
Have fun and fly safe.
Stan
Thanks for all the helpful replies.
I'm not sure why some builders get so defensive about not having a BRS. Yes, It's the absolute last resort. As soon as you mention a BRS many chime in on how the pilot should be able to land in all situations. No one plans to make you install a BRS, don't panic
Also... If Vans fuse kit came with a BRS installed I wonder how many of the anti-BRS individuals would remove it.
Have fun and fly safe.
Stan
Last edited:
OldAndBold
Well Known Member
I wish it did, but...
If it did, I think I might have bought it. But that tacks on how many more hours of build time? And how many more dollars? And I can see where Vans wouldn't want the extra hassle of supporting it. Or the liability.
I looked at Chuck's webpage and while it sounds like a great idea (and it looks like Chuck did a great job) it seems like way more building complexity than I would be capable of. Software is real easy for me, but working with metal, that's hard.
-- John Babrick (almost done drywalling the shop, getting close to the empennage)
designerX said:
If it did, I think I might have bought it. But that tacks on how many more hours of build time? And how many more dollars? And I can see where Vans wouldn't want the extra hassle of supporting it. Or the liability.
I looked at Chuck's webpage and while it sounds like a great idea (and it looks like Chuck did a great job) it seems like way more building complexity than I would be capable of. Software is real easy for me, but working with metal, that's hard.
-- John Babrick (almost done drywalling the shop, getting close to the empennage)
JimLogajan
Active Member
the_other_dougreeves said:
Hitting an unseen rut or large rock on what appeared from a distance to be reasonably decent terrain and flipping over can also cause injuries. As far as worries of de-making the plane, consider what this authority says:
"How to live when your engines dies!
...
The pilot's mental programming must also immediately change....
His concern must now become that of survival. He must forget about damage to the airplane; rather he must assume that it will be lost just as the engine power has been lost.... However, he must maintain control and airspeed and if necessary, sacrifice the airframe by flying it into the lesser of available obstacles." -- Richard VanGrunsven writing in The RVator, second issue, 2006.
Have you ever noticed what race cars do have in regards to safety? It may be hard to fit all those steel roll cages, huge seats and restraint devices in an RV unless you want to double it's weight.
I hope you sold your "air bomb" on eBay... there is a huge demand for those dangerous things.
I hope you sold your "air bomb" on eBay... there is a huge demand for those dangerous things.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Formula 1 cars weigh a minimum of 605kg (1333 lb), have engines that make 750Hp plus and provide incredible crash protection. Needless to say, everything that can be built from composites is. The cars are normally under 500kg and use ballast to bring them up to minimum weight and provide better weight distribution.designerX said:
So, crash protection doesn't always have to equal more weight, but it does involve other sacrifices that we may not want to make.
pfactor
Well Known Member
the_other_dougreeves said:
...... fixed that for you.....
N941WR
Legacy Member
This could start a hole new thread but the BRS issue is kind of like the one I hear on the car forums. Small, nimble car, with good brakes that can avoid an accident or the big, slow, tippy SUV/Pickup that just plows over whatever gets in its way. (BTW, I have both and would rather drive my small car, even with the track suspension. The truck is just a big slug waiting to cream somone.)designerX said:Have you ever noticed what race cars do have in regards to safety? It may be hard to fit all those steel roll cages, huge seats and restraint devices in an RV unless you want to double it's weight.
I hope you sold your "air bomb" on eBay... there is a huge demand for those dangerous things.
Sorry about the off thread topic but I wanted to point out that you will never convince someone that the BRS is a good idea, unless they already believe it.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
How about..
I scanned but how about a parachute on your back? It you want a BRS - wait a 3 count before pulling the "D" ring and go "Ballistic", than "Recover" and land "Safely" - "Ballistic Recover Safely"
Seriously what if you have a massive engine failure, oil, gas and fire? Do you want to stay strapped to 1800 lbs in flames to the ground?
I scanned but how about a parachute on your back? It you want a BRS - wait a 3 count before pulling the "D" ring and go "Ballistic", than "Recover" and land "Safely" - "Ballistic Recover Safely"
Seriously what if you have a massive engine failure, oil, gas and fire? Do you want to stay strapped to 1800 lbs in flames to the ground?
Last edited:
billnaz
Well Known Member
SR22s are crashing in AZ
Just to muddy the waters a little more, there have been two SR somthin crashes in AZ in the last few months, both in IMC i believe. Don't they have terrain avoidance software? Just goes to show ya there's no easy answers in safety matters.
In my case I've decided to use a chute as my seat back cushon. I think it is a reasonable compromise in the wt/complexity/cost/safety equation.
Just to muddy the waters a little more, there have been two SR somthin crashes in AZ in the last few months, both in IMC i believe. Don't they have terrain avoidance software? Just goes to show ya there's no easy answers in safety matters.
In my case I've decided to use a chute as my seat back cushon. I think it is a reasonable compromise in the wt/complexity/cost/safety equation.
