BRS's anyone ?

F

fairchild

Well-known member
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
 
TLDR version: Given the engineering changes required to make a parachute landing "safe" for the seated occupants, and the very low "crash speed" (minimum controllable airspeed) of the Bearhawk, I personally elected to blow off the idea of using a whole-airplane parachute. Detailed thinking below...

I thought about putting a whole-airplane parachute in my Patrol build, with the idea that having the 'chute on board might help my wife feel more comfortable flying with me (she's a very nervous flyer). So I got to wondering about what it would take, and how much of an impact it might really have...

The only "reference" I could find was a statement on the Cirrus website that under CAPS deployment, the aircraft will be descending at approximately 17 knots (19.56 mph – let's call it 20 mph for simplicity). The Cirrus is designed around this, with seats having a "crush mechanism" that reduces the g-forces from a near-vertical impact. The Bearhawk? Not so much. The seat frames appear to be designed to hold the occupant in place, but the seat pan (non-existent in the plans) would need to be designed to absorb G's. How many of us have done that? I'd venture approximately 0%... We tend to think "horizontal" forces, not "vertical" ones. So if I were going to install a whole-plane parachute, the seats would need to be re-designed, and the space below the seats would need to be kept clear of anything that might "penetrate" if the seat were vertically crushed. (And lest you think this might be easily handled, consider that until you actually deploy a parachute and see what attitude the airplane takes on as it comes to earth, you really have no idea what forces you need to be absorbing with your seat design. The Cirrus lands significantly nose-low, so the landing gear does almost nothing to arrest the descent rate...)

OK, so assuming the engineering aspects are handled, what are the down-sides to the parachute? If I lost a wing (or tail component) in flight, the parachute would be the best option under any circumstances I can imagine. But I believe Bob's engineering accounts for all the "normal" situations, and I can lower the risk of this happening to me by avoiding flight near thunderstorms, avoiding flight in high wind-shear conditions, etc. Not perfect, but certainly a risk-mitigation strategy.

But what about an engine failure under IMC (which sounds like a parachute no-brainer)? In reality, the possible outcomes are mixed, at best. IMC all the way to the ground? Parachute is best option. IMC with 1000-foot ceilings, in a Bearhawk? I'd probably rather break out at 1000 ft with a chance to select my landing area (from an admittedly very limited set of options). But what if I were able to re-start the engine during the descent? Not an option if I've pulled the 'chute... And most engine failures are actually fuel starvation-related (empty tank, etc.) rather than actual "mechanical failures" of the engine.

So now assume I've pulled the chute, and I'm descending at 20 mph vertically (about 1700 FPM). Am I better off than I would be without a parachute, descending at about 10 mph vertically (900 FPM) and at 35-45 mph horizontal airspeed (minimum controllable airspeed - MCA). To me, it entirely depends on what I'm descending into. If I'm landing in a densely populated area (downtown major city, for instance), the parachute sounds best, until you realize I'm going to be "blowing with the wind" and could easily wind up smacking into the side of a building, getting the 'chute hung on a roof-top (or fire escape, etc.) and then falling to the ground anyway. Or I could be blown into power lines... (Or insert your particular nightmare scenario here)...

By comparison, if I'm descending at MCA, I can steer the airplane parallel to the "valleys" of whatever terrain is below me (city canyons or mountain canyons). I still have the power line issue, but at least I stand a small chance to see and avoid them. And given the option to touch down rolling at 35-45 mph with very little vertical velocity, I'd rather trust the steel tube fuselage and seat belt + shoulder harness (you put one at ALL seating positions, right?) than to trust my engineering skills in designing crush-survivable seats for the parachute landing. (Canvas slings? Can you spell "paraplegic"?)

When I discussed this with my wife (leaving out everything except "would you be more comfortable in the plane if we had a whole-airplane parachute?"), her answer was that with the slow landing speeds of the Bearhawk line (versus the 50-65 mph "crash speed" of a certified plane) she didn't think a parachute would make her feel any better about it at all.

The great thing about the experimental amateur-built category is that YOU, as the builder, get to decide for yourself whether or not a whole-airplane parachute makes sense for YOUR airplane, YOUR flying activities, etc. As for me, I figured that if I could make about as good a case against the 'chute as for it, and my wife wouldn't be any happier flying with the 'chute than without it, I would trust Bob's design, and continue my quest to build as light as possible. (Which, by the way, also serves to reduce the vertical velocity at MCA... Win-win!)
 
Great consideration of the issue by Jim, my thinking was very similar when I was considering if a BRS was worth it. One of the reasons I landed on the Bearhawk was it's slow touchdown speed and overall survivability.

IIRC it was in excess of $10k or more for a BRS suitable for a BH, plus engineering a custom install. More parts, lower usable load, and now an explosive that needs to be serviced. For something that would be helpful in a very limited number of instances I think the cons outweigh the pros.
 
I definitely wouldn't tell anyone what to put on their plane. A BRS definitely gives you one last chance. I also don't know how the BRS's are marketed, but I wouldn't call using one a "choice".

There is a saying with life rafts and boats/ships. You only board a liferaft by climbing into it, not by stepping down from the still floating mothership. The mothership is option "A". Even skydivers carry a spare, as the main isn't 100% reliable.

I have witnessed 3 emergency chute deployments. 1 hang glider reserve chute at 1000', a BRS deployment at 5000' from a hang glider tow plane. And an F-15 ejection at 900' (inverted). All three were unsuccessful. The chutes didn't open. Luckily, none were me. Even more lucky, and unbelievable, all 3 survived, mostly unhurt.

I would stay with the mothership as long as their was not catastrophic structural failure, or there was an uncontrollable fire. A Bearhawk can land at 35-40, which is pretty survivable if you do it right.
A Lancair IV, in rough terrain? i might choose differently.

Back when I rode an ejection seat, punching out was about 50/50 survivable. But the planes didn't really do well in a forced landing, so punching out was the preferred option. I think 1 F-16 deadsticked into Ohare about 30 years ago from cruise altitude. That is the only one I ever heard of. 2 Canadians actually deadsticked a 767 and A330 from cruise altitude.

I don't think having a BRS is a bad idea. I think using one is only the last resort. You might want to ask Bob about the failure modes of the BH fuselage in a vertical landing. But it is one last option.
 
WOW---- that's a LOT of food for thought...…
It sure seems more clear cut on a much higher stall speed aircraft like a lanceair or cirrus-- or maybe even an RV----
But as you say---- especially -maybe-- on the Bravo model--- no telling how slow you could fly it ----maybe down into the low 30's even--- that slow you feel like you could get out and run
and keep up with it ! :-)

OR -- on a lighter aircraft with a less trustworthy airframe and/or a rotax ---- that would make me want one. we have had 2 or 3 crash/eme landings in the last month or two
of homebuilt types running rotax powerplants that just went to crap suddenly. (no one hurt seriously thankfully)

After hearing all the above angles-- I kind of agree that it could be a waste of $ and payload. That 10K$ could be spent on a cs prop or a top overhaul...…

Thanks for the wisdom of been there-done-that !

Tim
 
I had a share in a Cirrus previously but for the bearhawk my thinking is exactly the same as others here. I’ll also add that with Alaska bush wheels you can really ‘plant it on’ if you need to which is part of the landing short thing. They also can help in making an emergency landing in rough spots or even water where you would normally expect to flip. Realistically, I decided that with 200-300ft of any sort of clearing, I would likely survive. What goes along with this is investing in training and practice to be able to hit to a landing spot with no power. I operated my last bearhawk from a paddock that was 500ft fence to fence. It took me about 6 months of practice at an airport before I was confident enough, but fast forward a couple of years and I really felt like I could land that think anywhere. Moral of the story, bush wheels and regular practice give me all the confidence I need to not even think about BRS. As others have said, Cirrus, lancair etc are totally different conversations.
 
Jim nailed it.

Here's a interesting webinar about BRS systems. Even talks about why they are designed for a nose down impact. http://www.eaavideo.org/detail/vide...32001/webinar--aw-chute?autoStart=true&page=3

9Gs is the standard for restraint systems to keep an occupant in their seat during a crash. It would take approximately 12 feet to slow a BH from 40mph to 0mph at 9Gs. Seems doable as long as you fly the plane all the way to the ground and don't run into something solid.
 
JimParker256 said:
The Bearhawk? Not so much. The seat frames appear to be designed to hold the occupant in place, but the seat pan (non-existent in the plans) would need to be designed to absorb G's. How many of us have done that? I'd venture approximately 0%... We tend to think "horizontal" forces, not "vertical" ones. So if I were going to install a whole-plane parachute, the seats would need to be re-designed, and the space below the seats would need to be kept clear of anything that might "penetrate" if the seat were vertically crushed.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 0%, I'm heading to the shop right now to weld tabs onto my seat frame (just because adel clamps are ugly) and have already cut out a piece of 2024T3 .025 for the seat back and pan. I'm not the only one, I know at least 3 more....

Using fabric is light, but I'd rather have my seat stay together in a crash.
 
But holding firmer is not absorbing, merely transmitting to spine. Fabric wrapping top and bottom may provide some absorption with each layer giving at say 5-9g??? Could be done with aluminum as well. I've thought of doing a trial seat frame and loading it up (or sticking it in the hydraulic press with gauge) to experiment with this very thing. Don't hold your breath for results... not enough getting done around here these days.
 
schu said:
I wouldn't say 0%, I'm heading to the shop right now to weld tabs onto my seat frame (just because adel clamps are ugly) and have already cut out a piece of 2024T3 .025 for the seat back and pan. I'm not the only one, I know at least 3 more....

Using fabric is light, but I'd rather have my seat stay together in a crash.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my front seat is built (over-built?) for staying together with my oversized butt in it, and I selected foam densities to absorb as much shock as I could without doing a complete engineering analysis on it, but I would not call it “designed to absorb vertical impacts”, even with the changes I’ve made. To do this right, you want some kind of a graduated crush mechanism, not just steel bars welded in place... Way too complex for my feeble brain, so I did the best I could to keep that part rigid, and build my “G” absorbsion on top of it.
 
To me, the BRS is an option for critical flight control failure, loss of a control surface, etc. The only other scenario is an engine failure in utterly UNLANDABLE terrain. Most other scenarios are just deadstick landing, but there are those where a BRS would be the only way to survive. For those of you saying you're confident because you can land short, that an ideal situation where the aircraft is flyable.

Soft packs are available for LSA weight class aircraft, but I'm not sure they offer anything yet for Bearhawk 4-place weights that isn't an integrated type.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
fairchild said:
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
Click to expand...

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 - Click image for larger version Name: unnamed.jpg Views: 0 Size: 23.1 KB ID: 55457

What its like to fly behind this sort of Twin

 
Last edited:
way_up_north said:
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....




What its like to fly behind this sort of Twin

Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 ....
 
Last edited:
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......
 
Last edited:
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.
 
tailwind said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
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 - Click image for larger version Name: img57447521dc9ba.JPG Views: 0 Size: 26.4 KB ID: 55546
1755705765.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: 1755705765.jpg Views: 0 Size: 28.8 KB ID: 55547
 
Last edited:
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
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
There are pros and cons to every build decision. Each builder/pilot has to decide if the pros outweigh the cons to achieve a level of acceptable risk. For me the cons (primarily weight and cost) are unacceptable trade-offs to achieve that lowest level of risk. If I was that concerned with the risk I'd wear a chute and helmet on every flight, but I don't and neither do most people.
 
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!
 
.... 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...
 
Last edited:
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"
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

If its related to BRS....this is the place for this sort of post...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
Gerd Mannsperger said:
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.
Click to expand...

This--agree 100%. Pages and pages of debate on this topic over on POA (mainly Cirrus related but relevant nonetheless).
 
Last edited:
I would say that a pilot who forsakes training and currency BECAUSE he has a chute available, is equally likely to forsake that training and currency REGARDLESS of the chute status. I have a buddy who casually told me he was surprised by how many "stop-and-go" landings I make every time I fly. (I've been known to squeeze in 13 stop-and-go landings in a 1-hour flight, when there aren't too many of our local Cirrus pilots in the pattern.) He candidly admitted that he almost never practices landings, other than one at the end of every flight. When I flew with him, his final approach speed (Cherokee) was 90 knots, and he touched down at about 75 knots, using up almost half the runway before managing to force the airplane onto the ground, and rolling almost to the end of a fairly long runway (about 6500'). After he watched me make my first-ever landing in my "new-to-me" RANS S-6 experimental LSA, he commented that I didn't use very much of the 2600 foot-long runway (made the mid-field turnoff), and we launched off into a lengthy discussion about practicing what you want to do well, and "repeatability". He realized he had developed some pretty sloppy habits, and promised to change the way he flew so that on every flight, there would be some "training and practice" aspect, not just boring holes in the sky.

But I really don't think that lack of training or currency is the real reason people who fly with a chute do so... The Klapmeier brothers design included a chute because one of them was fortunate enough to survive a mid-air collision and live to fly again. That event haunted him, and the CAPS system was developed as a "last-chance" solution to that specific problem. And you gotta admit, the chute is the ONLY possible solution to that particular problem. Then, because the chute was already there, additional uses were found for it, and people got "comfortable" with the chute as a substitute for training and currency.

What is telling to me is that for quite a few years there, CIrrus accidents had a significantly higher fatality rate than the rest of the GA fleet, despite the chute being available. Some people were just waiting too late to deploy the chute, while others did not deploy it in situations that called for it. As a result, there were a lot of Cirrus deaths. It wasn't until Cirrus came out with a detailed pilot training program – and insurance companies basically began mandating that all Cirrus pilots go through that training – that the accident fatality statistics improved to where they are now (slightly better than the GA average). And that was with a factory-funded set of test deployments to determine just how low you could be and still deploy successfully, and several "real life" tests where they destroyed an airplane (the chute deployment basically ensures the airframe is trashed) to test and validate their emergency procedures. I, personally, don't have the money to fund a Bearhawk equivalent test process, nor would I be willing to sacrifice even one complete Bearhawk build cycle in order to test the chute deployment.

All said and done, my preference would be to spend the money for good harnesses (4-point or even 5-point), and use them on every flight. Flying in the back country, a helmet would be high on my list as well. Then take the rest of the savings over the cost of the chute, and convert it into AvGas and CFI time to continue to hone my skills.

But if I was the survivor of a mid-air collision, I might well have a different opinion...
 
One little known fact is that cirrus did not meet the stall/spin recovery standards for certifications.

Instead of going back and re designing the airframe they opted for an alternate means of compliance recovery a chute.

And came up with a great marketing campaign to go with it.
 
Gerd Mannsperger said:
One little known fact is that cirrus did not meet the stall/spin recovery standards for certifications.

Instead of going back and re designing the airframe they opted for an alternate means of compliance recovery a chute.

And came up with a great marketing campaign to go with it.
Click to expand...

Can you point to a source of this? I've head both sides claimed on this point and it would be great ti separate urban myth from truth.
 
The only source I have is that they neither confirmed nor denied it when I directly asked them about it many years ago at the Alaska airman show so take that for what it is worth.
 
Spend millions trying to certify a new design but it can't pass the cert? The cheapest fix is a parachute. Sell the BRS as a safety feature, instead of a bandaid.

Sounds like something I might do.
 
I would love to have one. I just can't justify the extensive modification, weight and complete untested nature of it in our aircraft. But for night and/or LIFR flying in a piston single over terrain. It'd give me some warm fuzzies. I don't really do that with the airplane, but I might consider if I had something like that. If I had a cirrus, night and low IFR are right in the middle of it's mission profile so it makes lots of sense.
 
Here's another data point to add to the discussion. This is from a good friend of mine who is a long time Cirrus owner, currently building an RV-6. He was a career F-14 pilot and we were instructors in the same squadron for a tour, so extensive experience with ejection seats and those escape profiles. I asked him about his experience with the Cirrus and whether he was putting a BRS into his RV.

tl;dr He's not. Going to wear parachutes instead since they will be doing mild aerobatics.

"I am not planning to put one in the RV, but that is mostly because of my desire to get the RV flying quickly. Even simple mods can add years to build time. So I am planning to simply wear chutes in the cockpit and have a jettisonable canopy. As a Cirrus owner, I can tell you that CAPS made all the difference when it came to my family flying comfortably. Probably a third of my passengers would not have otherwise flown in a “little airplane.” Professionally, it allowed me to operate single engine, night, IMC without much concern. I always had an out and I loved it. Just like the seat out of our jets back in the day. Lately, Cirrus has changed their recommendations regarding engine out procedures. They recommend CAPS deployment 100% of the time. After 22 years of data, it is clear that CAPS works better than a pilot suddenly full of adrenaline trying to land in a field at 80 mph. As long as your insurance is paid up. The one down side is the repack every 10 years. Not a big deal if you put together a no shit reserve, but it’ll be $15k."

Granted, the Cirrus is rarely landing off airport so they have no practice with that, as many back country pilots have. He had some further thoughts regarding the Bearhawk/STOL aircraft in particular:

"For your machine, I can imagine the arguments against it. Cost, weight, complexity. Plus, you land MUCH slower and that is the key to living. CAPS is only good above 400’ too, so you’re still going to be in a no-man’s land just after take off for about 30 seconds. Bottom line, I love it. I will never fly without an out of some sort the rest of my days."
 
Last edited:
It'd be very difficult to bail out of the bearhawk with the stock doors. I'm sure you could do it, but it'd be difficult. As far as through 400' and 30 seconds. I'm sure he means 400' and the whole flight. Since that's a thing a lot of times.
 
I'm considering one, but I'm a couple years away from needing to make the decision so it may change by then... I see it in a similar light to what Mike Patey is getting at with adding one in Scrappy. Engine out is no big deal in these planes, we can land damned near anywhere, but loss of flight controls, severe turbulence breaking important parts (wings, horiz stab, etc), takes away that land anywhere ability... I'll see if it can fit in my budget (both money and W&B)
 
Honestly, if you're concerned about any type of turbulence save flying into a T-storm breaking any critical part of the airplane, it's not airworthy to begin with.
 
I would find it pretty surprising for any company to make pulling the chute a standard procedure for something like an engine out. That would make them liable for a plane full of bodies if the event wasn't survivable. We live in a time of disclaimers for everything, including the risk of the high temperature of the cup of Mcdonalds' coffee.

Airbus and Boeing stopped publishing some things as "limits", like crosswind limits. They didn't want the liability of a crash if a pilot stayed within limits, but still crashed. They both now publish some things as "max demonstrated".
 
I'm fairly sure no manufacturer has ever published a crosswind limit. It's always been max demonstrated. Go find a 1952 piper POH. There's no limit.
Boeing and Airbus on the other hand absolutely do publish crosswind limits in regards to certain types of landings. Most notably Cat 2&3.
 
To be clear, he is not suggesting personal parachutes for STOL planes. I fly Airbus now and have flown Boeing and MacAir in the past, as zkelley2 states, they do indeed have crosswind, headwind and tailwind limits for dry, wet, snow, VMC, CAT I, II, and III in the Operating Manual. In the military (for Grumman anyway) NATOPS had charts that displayed the recommended area and beyond that it was charted but "not recommended". Not prohibited. Operational necessity and aircraft/pilot ability was the limiting factor. I'm looking into it and discussing with family, but leaning towards no BRS in the Bearhawk personally.
 
You can rather easily avoid mountain based rotors. You can see them and you can predict where they will be even in absence of the tell tale clouds.

Jet stream induced CAT on the other hand, perhaps not, but we can't fly these things up there.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz9NoMPrH-I Mike's latest. Not a real world test, but an interesting view of a deployment in a Cub(ish) airframe. A ton of thought and engineering went into the whole system and he worked closely with BRS engineers. One of them even flew in for the test. He was also given access to big manufacturer's video and data showing the forces applied when firing off the rocket. Interesting all around regardless of your personal stance on parachutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top