Martin wrote:
You ideally want both. Helicopters have those seats, yet when they have skids, they are designed to absorb some energy as well. Every bit helps.
Yes. That is why I think it is primarily a thing that new airframes should get. Retrofitting old ones really depends on exactly these factors. The Cessna gear is suited for this kind of thing whereas many others are not.
Martin wrote:
On new production (they are not cheap after all), perhaps; however, they would probably struggle with volume.
I agree. New planes will struggle without the BRS system. Yet it is another system to maintain and with current prices that is not an easy thing to do.
Steve6443 wrote:
BRS are shooting themselves in the foot because apart from Cirrus owners who either HAVE to have the aircraft or lose their airworthiness, why would anyone pay such ridiculous prices?
When I looked at the Flight Design C4 web page, somewhere in there they said they would do proper spin tests so the airworthiness of the aircraft was not reliant on the BRS. One has to wonder, isn’t the Cirrus spin tested, or even worse – is it dangerous to spin?
BRS isn’t the only game in town though, particularly for lighter aircraft.
e.g. http://www.magnumparachutes.com/safety.htm
I don’t know how prices compare.
The idea of an all airframe parachute is not about trusting the build of the aircraft. It’s about advancing safety margin for flight over water, mid-air collisions, night flying, fuel emergency with no suitable landing area, engine out on takeoff…
The small cost in useful load and maint. is inconsequential when compared to losing a life in the aircraft or on the ground.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Steve,at mooneyspace they quote $5800.- for the BRS repack in a C182, from BRS themselfs. Price for a 172 BRS is quoted as 13’900$ and 15’500$ for the 182 plus installation.
So why is it minimum $15000 for a Cirrus – in the US? In Europe it’s even more expensive because the Chute needs to be sent to the US and the rocket propellent means this is incredibly expensive.
Ah, but thinking about it, it’s probably because without the Chute, the Cirrus is not airworthy hence BRS are charging through the nose….. I’m wondering when the first Cirrus reach 30 years and the repack is due, how people will react when the repack costs more than the plane? Stupid to certify a plane which HAS to have an item which a third party can charge through the nose for……
USFlyer wrote:
The idea of an all airframe parachute is not about trusting the build of the aircraft. It’s about advancing safety margin for flight over water, mid-air collisions, night flying, fuel emergency with no suitable landing area, engine out on takeoff…
There are lots of reasons. The main reason is engine out and no suitable landing area. Gliders use parachutes (personal), and the main reason is mid air when in a gaggle. For acro we also use personal chutes, and the main reason is the airframe may break apart or the aircraft may become uncontrollable. When testing experimentals for airworthiness, a chute is required for testing Vne (flutter) and spin due to the chances of the aircraft breaking apart, and all acro.
Anyway, basically it gives you a chance to survive an otherwise un-survivable circumstance, whatever cause. It gives you a second life.
LeSving wrote:
When I looked at the Flight Design C4 web page, somewhere in there they said they would do proper spin tests so the airworthiness of the aircraft was not reliant on the BRS. One has to wonder, isn’t the Cirrus spin tested, or even worse – is it dangerous to spin?
This is one of the more well known myths – that Cirrus wasn’t spin tested. First, the wings are set up in such a manner that it stalls inboard first, the ailerons are still responsive – I’ve stalled a Cirrus and kept wings level using the ailerons without any problem. So, in normal use, the plane shouldn’t be capable of spinning – it’s the passive safety concept of Cirrus. By the way, anyone who doesn’t recognise a stall in a Cirrus really SHOULDN’T be flying, it is that pronounced. Secondly, the aircraft HAD to be spin tested for EASA certification – in the US they didn’t spin test it because 1) the plane won’t spin without aggressive spin provoking inputs and 2) it has the chute to recover. Therefore, the short answer is a Cirrus isn’t any more dangerous than other GA aircraft not certified for spins.
However it remains a fact that the Cirrus, without a Chute, is not airworthy. Which makes me all the more annoyed to hear BRS quoting 5.8k for a Mooney repack whereas for a Cirrus we are talking minimum double, if not nearly treble that amount – because the Chute is required equipment…..
Steve6443 wrote:
1) the plane won’t spin without aggressive spin provoking inputs and
What do you mean by aggressive spin provoking inputs? By far most light airplanes will not spin without spin provoking inputs (stall, then full up elevator and full rudder, and keep it there), and will stop when you stop applying spin provoking inputs.
Steve6443 wrote:
it’s probably because without the Chute, the Cirrus is not airworthy
Nonsense. The Cirrus pioneered the BRS parachute system. And the system saves lives. No expense to too large to equal that outcome.
The FAA did not require Cirrus to perform spin certification because A. the NASA anti-spin-split wing unique to the Cirrus stops the spin from happening in the first place and B. the chute not only stops the spin from ending in disaster (only 2% of flat spins are recoverable) but also saves lives in mid-airs, over water, and when no landing alternative is available.
The Cirrus has been spin tested and recovers like any other aircraft that has spin certification. Cirrus also sacrifices airplanes testing the BRS chutes for each new version of their products, SR22, SF50 jet. The airworthiness of the Cirrus is not predicated on the BRS, but is ENHANCED by it.
The Cirrus SR20 was revolutionary. The Cirrus SR22 and SR22T sell on average over 300 aircraft a year, dwarfing all other GA prop aircraft sales combined. The ultimate approval and proof of superiority of an aircraft design is a purchase and a pilot entrusting the lives of their families to the aircraft….
