I stand corrected on the term “sink rate”- although the absorption of kinetic energy on the last meter or so DOES reduce the sink rate, doesn’t it. But destroying the kinetic energy is a better espression of course.
And, no, I don’t think they would have to design the airplane from scratch. Cessna didn’t have to, either. They just went ahead and certified existing 172 and 182 for the BRS. It still is a considerable effort, though, and must be very cost expensive, for sure. Which Hawker Beech probably doesn’t want to spend.
I agree it was a stupid move, though. Cessna, Piper, Beech – all of them where dead wrong re the market
Alexis wrote:
But that has nothing to do with the “sink rate”, AFAIK.
Drop it, please! That was an obvious writing mistake by a Euroflyer. He meant energy absorption which is clear both from the context and from his other postings.
How can I know that he meant? He wrote “lowers the sink rate”, right?
But I get it now.
EuroFlyer wrote:
For some reason there is almost no discussion or thread regarding the Cessnas with a BRS.
Funny you mention that. I discovered, not so long ago, that there are C182T with a chute…
Yes, there’s the story of the US pilot who got it installed in his 182 and had to use it on the first flight after installation … worked.
JasonC wrote:
I am not sure why everyone is offended so much by Cirrus marketing. Cessna, Beech etc all used clever marketing when they were getting established to encourage new owners into aircraft ownership.
Arne wrote:
I like the Land-o-Matic.
I did a tailwheel rating on a Bellanca Decathlon last week. Now I really appreciate my land-o-matic!
achimha wrote:
Now I really appreciate my land-o-matic!
The land-o-matic has probably saved more lives than the BRS chute.
This showed up in my FB feed… “Dramatic video showing the recent deployment of a BRS ballistic parachute during spin recovery testing of an LSA aircraft. Test pilot became concerned about altitude loss and wisely chose to deploy his recently installed BRS, with no injuries to the pilot and only minor superficial damage to aircraft.”
Obviously you get the usual comments about why there was no attempt to recovery and further BS… In the interest of starting more threads I thought I’d try and bring the debate here. To me it is clear that the pilot did the right thing by deploying the chute…
Well i Counted 8 seconds from pulling the chute until hitting the ground. Not a moment too soon.
