What's new
Van's Air Force

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

BRS for RV-12

Flying Griff

I'm New Here
Like investing, everyone?s risk tolerance is different but the idea of a BRS system has merit to me. My post is not about the pros and cons of airframe parachute systems. A lot of the issues were reviewed in the Sept 2013 edition of Aviation Consumer. I have had several conversations with Vans and it is clear this is low on their priority list. Although different to mine, I understand their point of view. With that in mind, I have hired an aeronautical engineer to design attachment points for a BRS system in my own RV12, even though it will impact the aircraft weight and appearance.

His preliminary feasibility study proposes a staged development plan. It is likely the first stages alone, based upon computer design, simulation and analysis followed by review with BRS, will satisfy my own needs. The plan could be ?commercialised? with detailed documentation and additional ?live? structural testing. In recent discussions about the RV7-9 BRS installation, the latter has been a topic of interest. However, the cost of the project would be substantially magnified. To go down that path would require a reasonable expectation of partial cost recovery, based upon selling the plans to other RV12 builders.

So the aim of my VAF post is to gauge how much interest there is in a BRS system for the RV12. I would ?ballpark? a reasonable cost estimate for an attachment system plan to be about $1500. As I?m not aiming for profit, greater interest means lower cost. Note the purchase of the actual parachute system from BRS would be additional to this.

If you are interested, please reply to the post or email me at flyinggriff at rogers dot com.
I?d also welcome any suggestions on how to reach out to RV12 builders that don?t read VAF.
 
Facebook has several RV related groups, including one for RV12 builders, easily found. Google will also lead you to other RV web sites. You can also search FAA records and do direct mail.
 
It seems like the gas tank would be an issue either with a rocket motor going off in proximity to it or from possible damage when the lanyard deploys.
 
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?
 
I think the estimate is high. My Aventura HP BRS 1050 cost about $4800. The pack was good for 5 years, and a repack was about $1100 as I recall.
 
The Aventura HP has a gross weight of 545 pounds. Won't be the same rocket or chute as one for an RV. Should be a lot closer to the Cirrus BRS, which several magazines mention as $9,000-$10,000 a pop. I think my WAG is not so bad.
 
Bill,

I doubt any HP was ever built with an EMPTY weight less than 600lbs in spite of what the company said. My empty weight was about 650. Aventura actually had two sets of weight and balance data, and neither was reliable.

Aircraft Spruce lists the BRS 1350 at $5100 or $7100 (soft pack vs. canister) which includes a lanyard, so even allowing $1000 for a custom mounting a builder should be able to install a unit for $6K to $8K.
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Thanks, Scott. BTW after my post I looked for a reference on the 1320 legal limit not including the extra weight of a BRS, but I couldn't find one. I know that when LSA was initiated that was specified. Does anybody know if FAA is counting the BRS weight in the gross weight limit?
 
Are you sure you aren't thinking of Part 103 ultralight category?
They allow 24 lbs over the 254 lb weight limit for an emergency chute.
Many of the models sold over the years required a chute because it helped meet the max weight when adding brakes etc (17 lb chute left 7 more pounds available for added extras)
 
Scott,

It's possible, but I would sworn the 1320 excluded "safety features". It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, and I know it wouldn't be the last.

Rich
 
If the 1320# excluded the safety features I think Flight Design would have done it for the CT because they "approved" 2 Swiss registered CT's in excess of 1600# for their around the world flight a few years ago. That tells me the plane is good for more than 1320#.

The only exclusion I am aware of for safety features is the one the FAA gave to Icon earlier this year for the added weight of their spin prevention design.
 
I've been involved with LSA rules from the beginning. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any, "across the board" weight exemptions for safety devices.

I'm pretty sure you are thinking about part 103 ultralights.
 
Back
Top