RobertL18C wrote:
The outer wing is now the only wing that is partially stalled, resulting in an increased lift vector differential effectively ‘locking in’ the spin beyond effective control inputs to achieve recovery.
I understand what you say but I don’t see why the same thing wouldn’t happen without washout.
A_A my theory is that a wing without washout is stalled across the wingspan, once it is stalled. The outside wing is less stalled and producing a differential in lift. Now think of this outer wing with washout only half stalled, and the outer half unstalled, while the inside wing is stalled across the wingspan. This gives an extra kick to the differential in lift. This kick translates into a gyroscopic effect that flattens the spin, and increases rotation, and potentially decreases rudder and elevator effectiveness.
Peter
The Kevlar straps that rip out of the side of a Cirrus when the parachute is deployed do not have to be removed during the BRS inspection/repack.
Some of the early aircraft required the parachute to be removed from the top, this resulted in some GRP work to make good the paintwork around the frangable panel above the BRS system, on later aircraft the BRS system removal and inspection is done via a hatch in the back of the baggage bay.
I’m not sure BRS retrofit is a good idea as the descent rate is such that the aircraft seats and structure have to be able to cushion the contact with the ground. Cirrus have designed a void below the seat to enable the seat structure to deform into the void to absorb some of the vertical energy, as you might understand it is prohibited to fit any equipment into this space ( it would be the an easy place to put the DME that is missing in the factory Avionic fit !!)
Retrofitting a BRS system requires a lot more thinking about than attaching a parachute and a big firework !
Just resurrecting an old thread on this. I will have a 2000 EASA reg 172S with a BRS system coming up for sale this week. No doubt it will suit someone down to the ground 
The paint and interior are pretty bespoke! Not your average 172 that’s for sure.
Nice! $?
I am considering four-seater kit planes and both offer a parachute option. This shows that they can follow safety enhancements better then the certified world.
Parachute greatly reassures me for one situation : ditching (plus crash in a forest maybe). Europe has more water to be crossed than the lower 48, and being at ease to cross extended water is a plus. I am not a lifeguard, and every second out of gliding range with a family onboard would freak me out (just a personal reaction).
The 40kg is a pain, especially when the children grow :)
The ideal would be a removable parachute kit. Leaving the straps permanently but being able to install/remove the parachute/rocket assembly as needed.
FYI, the BRS kit for the RV10 was developped for a group of builders who negociated with BRS.
This is on a tangent but IMHO a chute is no help with a ditching. Watch that recent SR22 video where the chute dragged the plane under the water really quickly.
If you can land a plane – and I mean a reasonable glide approach, not flying a B52 circuit with a 10 mile final and a 0.01 degree “glideslope” with the engine running at 99% power, like they do around here – then you can ditch a plane successfully. Unless the sea state is bad; say a 30kt wind, and then a chute will help you even less.
The key is a raft and getting into it right away. Once you have to swim, you are gone.
Over land, sure there are meaningful scenarios for a chute.
The only risks that you can mitigate with a chute is mid-air collision or aerodynamical structural failures, the rest seems manageable by pilot skills/planing and early decsions
I am flying all possible missions, I would have to go for a chute, though not much of use if not pulled on time neither
Structural failure – yes. Mid-air collision maybe. There was a C152 hit by a military jet in the UK and I doubt it would have helped. And near Denver, following a mid-air someone jumped from the burning Cirrus with its parachute deployed.
In mountainous terrain, you might drift onto a steep slope, and in strong winds you may be traveling faster over the ground than an into-wind landing.
Peter, do you have a link to this ditching video you mention ?
I have watched some videos and all fixed gear ditchings seemed pretty hard on the crew… Contact to complete stop in less than 2 seconds, that’s a pretty harsh decceleration, and with the shock, one would not be very efficient in deploying a raft, same thing for the rear passengers who have to find a way out.
RG types seem to do better but not that much.
My interest comes from this video, the chute gave the pilot just enough time to deploy the raft. That’s what I would like if I were to ditch.
