BRS's anyone ?

[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.

[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

[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

[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...

[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]

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

[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]

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 ....

[zkelley2]

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

[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]

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 ...

[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

[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.

[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]

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