BRS's anyone ?

[tailwind]

I have a friend who worked on the development team and yes they have a model appropriate for the Bearhawk. It would be a custom install but I think they can make it work. I would not want the 40 pounds in the baggage compartment. I would also not like the periodic inspections. There are risks and benefits to every option. For me the risk / reward is not there.

[way_up_north]

Are the BRS systems being used much in the bearhawks ? They certainly have room in the back it would seem--- maybe be good for CG if you used a 540 up front-- maybe it would prevent having to relocate the battery to the rear.
Just one of the things I am thinking ahead about...…..
T

You know the best thing about the Bearhawk 5....you can say goodbye to Oratex....tell the kids to lay the paint on thick on the tail...no need for a diet for this plane


I`m going to tell you a way to double the safety of the Bearhawk....how to instal a BRS so it wont effect the CG at all and get a second engine...



Its going to ruffle some feathers and rub a lot of fur the wrong way....cause its not pretty and wont win any beauty pageants....

I`m going to build a TWIN ENGINE BEARHAWK...

Wont have to do any air frame modifications
I will get a BRS in the plane with NO effect on my CG
lower cost engines...
smaller adverse yaw then conventional twins.
better visibility in front of the nose of the plane
Better protection from bird strikes?
(granted not much savings on maintenance)

I hope you are sitting down for this...dont be drinking anything while you read this...cause it might come out your nose....

The bear hawk will look like this with the BRS in the nose....the engine nacelles can be positioned to compensate for the CG for and aft..during construction

Its a different engine mount with fiberglass/carbon fiber work

Finally a plane that can take the family to the Bahamas....


unnamed.jpg

What its like to fly behind this sort of Twin

[zkelley2]

We should talk... I have already talked to a couple aero engineers about doing exactly this on another bearhawk, probably the 5. Like the DO-28.

I'm actually thinking about building up a mount and doing a proof on concept on my 4 temporarily since I can flight test that quickly, then return to stock and start on the 5.

I've been after a twin engine bush plane for some time, but there's no commercial market so they don't exist since most people can't fly twins nor do they have thousands of hours in them and could consider them safer.

[way_up_north]

I don’t think it would add that much weight ... im working on doing a cad lay up of the wing right now on my Bearhawk 4 bravo... luckily I can slide it over to the 5

I’m happy to talk about something like this... we’ll work out a way to not clutter up the forum ...maybe have just one thread for mods whatever they are or private message each other

I’ve been slow building the 4 place because it only partially fit the mission

But the 5 is the cats meow ...

[zkelley2]

I agree. With something like 2 914's up front it'd be lighter than a 540 engine weight alone.

[auburntsts]

You know the best thing about the Bearhawk 5....you can say goodbye to Oratex....tell the kids to lay the paint on thick on the tail...no need for a diet for this plane





I`m going to tell you a way to double the safety of the Bearhawk....how to instal a BRS so it wont effect the CG at all and get a second engine...



Its going to ruffle some feathers and rub a lot of fur the wrong way....cause its not pretty and wont win any beauty pageants....

I`m going to build a TWIN ENGINE BEARHAWK...

Wont have to do any air frame modifications
I will get a BRS in the plane with NO effect on my CG
engines that cost a fraction of the 580s to buy
much smaller adverse yaw then conventional twins.
better visibility in front of the nose of the plane

I hope you are sitting down for this...dont be drinking anything while you read this...cause it might come out your nose....

The bear hawk will look like this with the BRS in the nose....the engine nacelles can be positioned to compensate for the CG for and aft..

Its a different engine mount with fiberglass/carbon fiber work

Finally a plane that can take the family to the Bahamas....


unnamed.jpg

What its like to fly behind this sort of Twin

Don't know if you're joking or not, but I personally would still strive to build it light, but that's your choice.

BRS isn't for me for the reasons already stated in this thread. As far as adding a second engine, well that's a different debate. While it can add safety (if the aircraft is properly designed, maintained and flown by a properly rated and competent multi-engine pilot), it definitely adds to the cost both in terms of acquisition and maintenance and operations. Again no thanks.

PS - I have no issues flying over small stretches of water like the Atlantic to the Bahamas, or over :Lake Michigan to/from Oshkosh in my single engine plane. Some won't, but for me the risk is acceptable.

[way_up_north]

Don't know if you're joking or not, but I personally would still strive to build it light, but that's your choice.

BRS isn't for me for the reasons already stated in this thread. As far as adding a second engine, well that's a different debate. While it can add safety (if the aircraft is properly designed, maintained and flown by a properly rated and competent multi-engine pilot), it definitely adds to the cost both in terms of acquisition and maintenance and operations. Again no thanks.

PS - I have no issues flying over small stretches of water like the Atlantic to the Bahamas, or over :Lake Michigan to/from Oshkosh in my single engine plane. Some won't, but for me the risk is acceptable.

Im calling it the Bearhawk 52....I have an open mind to such things... when I get to the firewall in the build ...with so much gross it tempting to do something a little different

[auburntsts]

That’s the spirit of E-AB. For example there have been 2 RV twins built, but it’s a huge endeavor and definitely not one I’d recommend for a first time builder. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want to fly or build and experiment? I don’t know your background but if you’re new to building the chances of successfully completing your first project will be greatly enhanced by keeping major modifications to the kit/plans to a minimum. I can tell you from experience that even a simple mod can add unforeseen months to a build. Major engineering mods like what you propose could easily add years to do it right. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to shoot down your dream, rather I’m trying to apply some expectation management. Please go in with eyes wide open.

[way_up_north]

You are 100 % right
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted

I don’t want to encourage anyone to deviate from the plans ....

[way_up_north]

Years ago I was building a Sonex

I went down to the factory at Oshkosh and met the CEO Jeremy Monnett



He showed me around and treated me like royalty...complete factory tour.....even thou I had bought the complete kit off another builder used...so there was nothing in it for him sales wise...

he sat me in the demo plane and let me make airplane noises....he even offered a demo ride ... but I had just driven all night to pick up the kit in lake Winnebago... and was in no shape for it...

you know how you don't remember that many days in your life....but some days stick....


Later in the build I posted on the yahoo Sonex groups about the BRS.....every builder had a reason it was a bad idea....the attitude back then was not friendly to the BRS

years later......Jeremy passed away in a Sonex plane crash over Whitman airfield, his engine had quit after takeoff...

Would a BRS had made a difference..it might have.....he was near pattern height.....maybe even a partial deployment would have made a bad situation a little better...maybe it would not have changed a thing..



But I wanted to tell you about a great guy...

i think its time we talk about the BRS......

[way_up_north]

Adding another data point to this conversation and some food for thought. Mike Patey is installing an airframe chute in Scrappy. He has a friend who had a wing failure in a Cub with no chute and miraculously survives. Mike interviews him in this video. https://youtu.be/7bOEnNpSBCM

I think Mike Patey will have a big positive effect of peoples perception of the BRS

[tailwind]

The shoots are ballistic launched. They can be deployed relatively low but I don’t know what the minimum height is. The explosive is included in the periodic inspection along with repacking the shoot.

[way_up_north]

The shoots are ballistic launched. They can be deployed relatively low but I don’t know what the minimum height is. The explosive is included in the periodic inspection along with repacking the shoot.

you probably know all about this... but for the benefit of those that might not be familiar....

The chute can be fully deployed in just a few seconds, but the canopy has a ring on the rope lines...to keep the canopy 80% closed in the event of a high speed deployment..so it does not get ripped away at high speeds...then slowly open ...this takes time for the canopy to fully deploy...for that ring to slide down the lines to allow it to fully open...

but you are getting some benefit during all of this...

[way_up_north]

I apologize to Fairchild for turning his BRS thread into a bit of a mod thread...I dont want to clutter up the forum with mods stuff so ill put this here...


If my BRS/twin engine idea got you going...you're really going to be jumping on this one...lol


...we can make experimental aviation history....never been done before ever on an experimental.....something the mother in law can get behind....,,,,,drum roll.....


third row toilet..have a pull around curtain for privacy.....since the Bearhawk 5 needs ballasts back there anyway...or behind the 3rd row installed sideways

have the seats in the back club style/facing each other...all 4 rear passengers will have access to the facilities...

you could even have a negative air line attached...So no smell








img57447521dc9ba.JPG
1755705765.jpg

[JimParker256]

But God help you if you encounter turbulence... But, hey, what are the odds of encountering significant up/down drafts in the back country, right? (Eye Roll)

Just got back from a 1050 mile cross-country trip from the Salt Lake City area to Dallas in my new-to-me Rans S-6ES (LSA with Rotax 100 HP engine). Flew over Canyonlands National Park, and found a few "bumps" along the way... But just outside of Albuquerque, I flew through some 1500 fpm up and down drafts, Cannot even imagine having a toilet on board for that!

[way_up_north]

.... pilots put kitty litter in there to ummm... keep the head liner from looking like modern art... the procedure is done into a bag with kitty litter in it....then tie it up and place in secure receptacle ....but yah it’s a project in development ...lol...

[Gerd Mannsperger]

In a well build and proven Slow flight capable design like a Bearhawk I would say the weight cost and complexity far outweigh the benefits.

Now Mikes Scrappy project is a real different can of worms--I might want to have a parachute in that one too. It is the epitome of experimental. Totally over the top heavyweight tank of a cub.

No Offence to Mike he does a great Job promoting Aviation and I admire the engineering and work he does.

The Mass in his Scrappy build alone makes it more difficult to survive any kind of impact. and the rigidity of carbon does not allow for energy to dissipate in a crumble zone

The simple rule of thumb is at 60 MPH landing speed survival odd's in of airport engine out landing is 50/50 -- with every MPH faster the survivability decreases exponentially -- going

the other way lowering the landing speed increases the survivability exponentially.

Low mass low speed = low energy.

I just went to look at a cub rebuild project where the pilot mistakenly flew into a box canyon where he could not turn out.

He landed straight into the rocks at full power full flaps -- both pilot and passenger walked away from it with barely a scratch.

A similar accident with a Cessna Grand Caravan that made the same mistake one could barely make out what plane that was.

Lots of Mass speed and Energy with no where to go is a Deadly combination.

Just some food for thought

[svyolo]

As long as I have a "wing and a prayer", I will take my chances with the mothership and my piloting ability. Pulling the chute seems kind of like quitting.

[way_up_north]

In a well build and proven Slow flight capable design like a Bearhawk I would say the weight cost and complexity far outweigh the benefits.

Now Mikes Scrappy project is a real different can of worms--I might want to have a parachute in that one too. It is the epitome of experimental. Totally over the top heavyweight tank of a cub.

No Offence to Mike he does a great Job promoting Aviation and I admire the engineering and work he does.

The Mass in his Scrappy build alone makes it more difficult to survive any kind of impact. and the rigidity of carbon does not allow for energy to dissipate in a crumble zone

The simple rule of thumb is at 60 MPH landing speed survival odd's in of airport engine out landing is 50/50 -- with every MPH faster the survivability decreases exponentially -- going

the other way lowering the landing speed increases the survivability exponentially.

Low mass low speed = low energy.

I just went to look at a cub rebuild project where the pilot mistakenly flew into a box canyon where he could not turn out.

He landed straight into the rocks at full power full flaps -- both pilot and passenger walked away from it with barely a scratch.

A similar accident with a Cessna Grand Caravan that made the same mistake one could barely make out what plane that was.

Lots of Mass speed and Energy with no where to go is a Deadly combination.

Just some food for thought

I agree with your points 100%...if you are flying in the country...wide open fields...lots of space...good places to land in all directions...

but I`m in the city...the plane will be parked at a municipal airport...in and out of that airport is 10 mins over industrial factories and suburbs.....tight city streets with wires

might as well be flying over the grand canyon...

the sonex has a stall speed of 40 mph....the story I told above about the sonex fatality was with a very experienced pilot in an aircraft that nobody knew better then him... and 40 mph stall....

his landing options were limited, if a BRS deployment is successful then it does not matter what youre flying over...youll survive the landing...

[way_up_north]

when I was working on my RV-7 I read every page of the NTSB reports and each incident...

I don't know what the ratio is now...but back then it was for every 10 RVs completed...there was one fatality...or in other words...around 10% of RV flyers are going to die in their own creations...and everyone just whistles along like its no big deal..(numbers might be different now Ive not looked in years)

granted Bearhawks, zenith and planes of that type( low stall speeds)....have much lower fatality risks...


I agree with you...if you fly alone...or mostly alone...then do whatever you want...

most people never use their house fire insurance...

most people don't need the sea belt or airbags in their car....

but the Bearhawk 5 lends itself to passenger use...you might get people using it like a minivan...thats my plan

Since I`m involving my family.....I`m going to put in airbags...ooopppps I mean a BRS in my plane...


I`m not the factory...but if I was ...I would offer a BRS installation option for the Bearhawk 5...mainly because the plane can carry a lot of people for an experimental....one bad accident(at no fault of the factory) can create a reputation for a plane...this way the onus is on the owner...the factory did all it could to create the safest possible plane for family use...and passenger safety....

This way when the news reporter reads the news...he will say..."and the pilot decided against installing the parachute option"

[JimParker256]

You said "This way when the news reporter reads the news...he will say...'and the pilot decided against installing the parachute option'"

You're giving that presumed reporter a LOT of credit... Most of them will report on the "Cessna" that crashed... The better ones MIGHT figure out that it was a "backyard build" and report that fact.

But look back at the post I wrote (several pages back) with the vertical speed under a chute data from Cirrus and others. You're still going to have a pretty rough impact, just in a direction from which the chromoly cage and seat structures were not designed to absorb shock. Like Cirrus, you're going to need to design your own "multi-G" seat crush structure if you're truly going to be safer under the chute than landing at 35-40 mph forward velocity. (And pray that the chute doesn't hang on the parapet of a 15-story building, light pole, or high tension line that you cannot steer away from...)

To me, a chute is the "only good solution" for one critical situation: The wing(s) or the tail separated from the airplane in flight. For almost anything else, I agree with Bob Hoover's advice to "Fly the airplane all the way to the crash site." I trust Bob Barrow's engineering enough to believe that by staying well within his design parameters for gross weight and CG, I'm unlikely to have an in-flight breakup, which is the only time I'd be wishing for that chute.

But the beauty of the Experimental Amateur Built category is that YOU (the builder) get to decide for yourself how YOUR airplane should be equipped. You want a chute? Install a chute! I don't want a chute? I don't have to install a chute. We both get to be happy!

[auburntsts]

"I don't know what the ratio is now...but back then it was for every 10 RVs completed...there was one fatality...or in other words...around 10% of RV flyers are going to die in their own creations...and everyone just whistles along like its no big deal..(numbers might be different now Ive not looked in years)"

You need to check your data. The accident rate for any RV has never been that high and even if it was the ratio of potential BRS saves would be smaller still--BRS is a tool in the tool kit, not a panacea. I don't know what you fly but I fly a 4-place SEL airplane IFR with my family all the time and I'm satisfied with the level of risk I assume. In my estimation a BRS doesn't lower the risk significantly for me to warrant the installation. But that's me. Not trying to dissuade anyone from the BRS, just providing a data point as to why I don't want it. If it gives you peace of mind, then absolutely go for it.

[Pbruce]

I hope I’m not hijacking this thread; I will start one elsewhere or ask the moderator to move this post if it’s unwanted here. I’m thinking of Jim’s comments about vertical deceleration: I wonder if the best, lightest solution, BRS or not, is nylon webbing between the perimeter frames of the seat (like and old-style lawn chair). . I think it would be tougher by far than aluminum or thin grades of plywood, but with a bit of “give”. Light, easy to install, perhaps more comfortable as a base for foam layers and upholstery. In a crash, it should deform the seat rails progressively inward, hopefully providing the effect of expanding the straps, and thereby providing one-time elasticity. Have people done this? How did it work out? Has anyone done the math on this? If so, I would like to know what size and type of webbing was favoured? Is it better to sew it on to the frames via loops in the webbing straps or glue them around the frame and rely upon the shear strength of glue, and if so, which glue? Alternatively, why not and what works better? Thanks

[svyolo]

Some helicopters (military that I know) have seats designed to absorb vertical impact, because that is how they crash. Airplanes usually crash nose first. If I was going to spend a dollar and a pound on crashworthiness, I think that is where I would spend it.

[Pbruce]

You are making a case for good harnesses then? I can’t argue with that.

I’m thinking no extra cost for the webbing seats, and I can’t see how you would be giving up crashworthiness in the horizontal plane in favour of the vertical. I think it might improve survivability in vertical decelerations, BRS or not, relative to wood or aluminum seat pans. I could be wrong though.

[way_up_north]

I hope I’m not hijacking this thread; I will start one elsewhere or ask the moderator to move this post if it’s unwanted here. I’m thinking of Jim’s comments about vertical deceleration: I wonder if the best, lightest solution, BRS or not, is nylon webbing between the perimeter frames of the seat (like and old-style lawn chair). . I think it would be tougher by far than aluminum or thin grades of plywood, but with a bit of “give”. Light, easy to install, perhaps more comfortable as a base for foam layers and upholstery. In a crash, it should deform the seat rails progressively inward, hopefully providing the effect of expanding the straps, and thereby providing one-time elasticity. Have people done this? How did it work out? Has anyone done the math on this? If so, I would like to know what size and type of webbing was favoured? Is it better to sew it on to the frames via loops in the webbing straps or glue them around the frame and rely upon the shear strength of glue, and if so, which glue? Alternatively, why not and what works better? Thanks

If its related to BRS....this is the place for this sort of post...

[Gerd Mannsperger]

Some Helicopters have the crush foam seat bases so does the Found bush hawk on the rear seats.

JARS has a seat design with a full crush zone for fixed wing aircraft. The back seats of the Found are only 11 pounds a seat with that technology build right in.

They are very save and very uncomfortable too.

Just 4 inches of high quality silicon foam on a stock seat are a significant improvement in impact absorption -- the stuff is real heavy -- for foam anyway.

But it is real comfortable.

My Biggest concern with the parachute is not the unit or what it can do or not do, it is that people will buy it to make up for lack of experience - training - Maintenance and many other important

aspects of Aviation safety.

All too often Avionics and Parachutes become financial band aids to make up for the list above.