VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-09-2013, 12:40 PM
Flyguytki's Avatar
Flyguytki Flyguytki is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fairbanks AK
Posts: 758
Default

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.
__________________
RV-7 N87DX Built, Flown, and Sold!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-09-2013, 12:57 PM
Sig600 Sig600 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KRTS
Posts: 1,798
Default

42 pounds in the tail?!? Yeah, that won't be a CG nightmare for an airplane that already tends to bias aft.
__________________
Next?, TBD
IAR-823, SOLD
RV-8, SOLD
RV-7, SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-09-2013, 01:18 PM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig600 View Post
42 pounds in the tail?!? Yeah, that won't be a CG nightmare for an airplane that already tends to bias aft.
If not too far aft, perhaps it means zero luggage.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-09-2013, 02:00 PM
rv7boy's Avatar
rv7boy rv7boy is offline
Forum Peruser
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austinville, Alabama
Posts: 2,465
Default 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'!
__________________
Don Hull
RV-7 Wings
KDCU Pryor Field
Pilots'n Paws Pilot
N79599/ADS-B In and Out...and I like it!

?Certainly, travel is more than the seeing of sights;
it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent, in the ideas of living." Miriam Beard

Last edited by rv7boy : 08-11-2013 at 05:27 PM. Reason: Changed "NACA vent" to "NACA duct"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-09-2013, 10:55 PM
rwhittier rwhittier is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 256
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smilin' Jack View Post

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
__________________
Roger Whittier
RV7A Quick Build, Tip Up
N1MY Reserved - Canopy finished - Wings mated, Engine hung, electrical 95%
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-10-2013, 10:41 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,083
Default

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!
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-10-2013, 01:38 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,797
Default

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.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390

Last edited by DanH : 08-10-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2013, 07:41 PM
Sig600 Sig600 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KRTS
Posts: 1,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhittier View Post
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.
__________________
Next?, TBD
IAR-823, SOLD
RV-8, SOLD
RV-7, SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-11-2013, 10:13 AM
rwhittier rwhittier is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 256
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig600 View Post
Recently there was a Cirrus with a BRS chute that failed to deploy.

Ironically the plane landed fine.
__________________
Roger Whittier
RV7A Quick Build, Tip Up
N1MY Reserved - Canopy finished - Wings mated, Engine hung, electrical 95%
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:06 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,797
Default

Skip all the "chute-no chute" argy bargy. What does this new chute package do to the RV-7 design?
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.