I could almost completely offset the parachute and ropes weight by installing a composite prop (a popular option for rv7) and an EarthX lithium battery, still with good CG. Maybe at the next tbo!
Can one add a BRS to any experimental plane in EASA land?
How do you know it will work and impact forces will be survivable?
There is no “easa land” in experimentals, every country has its own regulatory body. But my solution should work everywhere since it doesn’t affect the rv7 structurally nor aerodynamically. RVs are already the most built GA planes in the world along with Cirruses, I cannot imagine what they could become if BRS became a common option. To answer your last question, my chute has 140sqm, ie similar ratio surface/mtow of a cirrus. Galaxy, whose CEO assisted me in the design and installation, has many successful cases of first time deployments in different types and of course the chute/rocket system is a tried and tested model “off the shelf”. For the moment this is the best I could find. Of course I would prefer a real-life test.
Easa land was stupid → I meant your national authority can not object to installing a DIY parachute system? I’m asking because I might venture into this area of flying as it seems the least hassle, cost and (apart from VFR day only) potential to get a 4 seat plane with a chute that isn’t 40+ years old.
An early 2000’s sr20/22 should be your least hassle/cost for a 4 seater with brs, if you nail the prebuy inspection.
Engineering.
Really?
mancival wrote:
An early 2000’s sr20/22 should be your least hassle/cost for a 4 seater with brs, if you nail the prebuy inspection.
They still go for 150-200k. Old 172/182 would be around 100k but they would be 40 years old :(.
Peter wrote:
Really?
Yes! That’s the whole point, why after market refits are so exensive. You want to believe a tale about certification costs, but if you want to make sure the system WILL save you (and not probably rip apart the aircraft or leave you to impact head first), you need a good engineer who knows what he does and he will take some time to calculate or test things. It’s not music theory, but you need to be careful with these systems.
I know plenty installations, especially in experimentals, where I am certain the chute will do more harm than save anything. In one “fast experimental” for instance, the rocket would burn your feet rather than deploy.
I agree. A BRS is not something I would try to retrofit. Essentially every other modification you can do to an aircraft can be tested in a controlled and nondestructive manner. The only way you can be certain that a BRS installation works is to try it — most likely destroying the airframe in the process even if it did work as expected.
