And Germany actually makes the BRS mandatory in ultralights – correspondingly increasing max gross to 472,5 kg. In Belgium, we have the choice: 450 kg without, 472,5 kg with. There are several BRS out that weigh in at less than 22,5 kg, so that installing one can actually bring an increase in useful load.
BTW all this ruling about 450 and 472,5 kg could come from many sources but it certainly does not come from EASA – they don’t care tuppence about ultralights. The figures might originate from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale , some articles on Wikipedia suggest so.
Martin wrote:
It’s a bit more complicated than that.
Not according to EASA, that is what the regulation say.
dublinpilot wrote:
I think in that case, a BRS would be very reassuring when you’re trusting someone else’s building skills ;)
Any problems are usually to do with engine and fuel systems. I will be flying with a parachute in my Onex, but I really get what you are saying. My son is now getting his license, and the thought of him flying my Onex has already got me to revisit the VW homebuilt engine in favour of a ULPower. BRS would require a rebuild of the whole airframe though, so the parachute will have to do. When flying aerobatics and gliders we also use parachutes.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
BTW all this ruling about 450 and 472,5 kg could come from many sources but it certainly does not come from EASA – they don’t care tuppence about ultralights.
It’s correct they don’t care about ultralight/microlight, but nevertheless it is EASA that defines in the basic regulations what an ultralight/microlight is:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008R0216-20130129
(e) aeroplanes, helicopters and powered parachutes having no more than two seats, a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member States, of no more than:
(i) 300 kg for a land plane/helicopter, single-seater; or
(ii) 450 kg for a land plane/helicopter, two-seater; or
(iii) 330 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter single-seater; or
(iv) 495 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter two-seater, provided that, where operating both as a floatplane/helicopter and as a land plane/helicopter, it falls below both MTOM limits, as appropriate;
(v) 472,5 kg for a land plane, two-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system;
(vi) 315 kg for a land plane single-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system;
and, for aeroplanes, having the stall speed or the minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated air speed (CAS);
(f) single and two-seater gyroplanes with a maximum take off mass not exceeding 560 kg;
(g) gliders with a maximum empty mass, of no more than 80 kg when single-seater or 100 kg when two-seater, including those which are foot launched;
(h) replicas of aircraft meeting the criteria of (a) or (d) above, for which the structural design is similar to the original aircraft;
(i) unmanned aircraft with an operating mass of no more than 150 kg;
(j) any other aircraft which has a maximum empty mass, including fuel, of no more than 70 kg.
Interesting post by the OP at Mooneyspace. He is running this survey in order to present it to BRS for them to get the idea whether it might be of intrest to them to offer the BRS system for existing M20 airframes. He currently flies a Mooney after having had a twin and now considers buying a Cirrus instead because he can’t get the BRS fit onto his Mooney.
My answer would have to be yes, if I can afford it. I the thread over at Mooneyspace, not many would be interested, mainly because of the 85lb payload loss. I also think 85lb is quite a lot for any airframe to loose. Yet the increased usablity of the airplane would probably outweigh that. For the M20 series however I see one fundamental problem: The landing gear is anything BUT suitable for this kind of arrival on terra firma. So probably an STC for Mooney would have to include other measures. The same goes for other short gear airplanes such as most Pipers as well.
I’ve been urging Mooney to consider at least offering the BRS for the M10 however. Personally I think that it would increase their chances for sales massively. I know that there are other folks who say the same and I wonder if Mooney will relent. It should be possible to do it there, with a lighter plane for starters and a different gear to the M20 series.
LeSving wrote:
Not according to EASA, that is what the regulation say.
Are you saying that single-seaters and two-seaters, land and sea planes, etc. all have the same limits? I don’t think so.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
BTW all this ruling about 450 and 472,5 kg could come from many sources but it certainly does not come from EASA – they don’t care tuppence about ultralights.
But what EASA cares about and what it doesn’t care about is specified in a regulation. It’s the famous Annex II to the Basic Regulation (No 216/2008).
PS: You quoted it yourself, @LeSving, so you see it’s not as simple as 450 without and 472.5 with.
I think another issue could be one of the cost of ongoing maintenance – with the Cirrus, the line cutters have to be replaced every 6 years and parachute replaced every ten years. Ten years ago, the BRS replacement was quoted at being around $10.000, now it’s around 15.000 EUROS. Let’s go forward another 10 years and BRS will be charging 20 to 25.000 Euros for an aircraft with a hull value of, say, 50.000 euros. Would you update the chute or just leave it?
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???? If they were to take a reasonable and considered decision to develop the market with reasonable pricing, they could have a winning product on their hands. If I look at other markets, the pricing usually comes down with the steady spread of implementation in that market. However, in the case of chutes for aircraft, BRS are just screwing people over by a continuous drive for higher profits. In such a case I would NEVER fit a BRS to an aircraft which didn’t need it to be legal…..
@Mooney_Driver Yes, crashworthiness would bother me. What use is a parachute to me if I get my spine crushed on landing? The airframe wasn’t designed for relatively high vertical speed impacts. It would have to be substantially more than just a parachute for me to consider it (airbag under the fuselage, proper 26 g seats, something along those lines).
Steve6443 wrote:
Ten years ago, the BRS replacement was quoted at being around $10.000, now it’s around 15.000 EUROS.
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.
Martin wrote:
What use is a parachute to me if I get my spine crushed on landing?
I do recall some discussions with Mooney people about whether the M20 could be upgraded to accomodate the shute. The only credible idea which came up was with redesigned seats, the idea being that the seats would have to include some cushoning to absorb the critical impact forces. As you say, an airbag on the underside of the fusellage which would be triggered prior to touch down is also an idea. Obviously this would yet again increase costs, while seats could work out also without breaking the bank. These things of course are not only of interest to Mooney, where the fusellage is strong enough, but also for Pipers, who have the same problem with the crashworthiness. I wonder btw how that will work with the CirrusJet re landing gear.
@Mooney_Driver 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. Alternative is to design a system that produces much lower vertical speed. Which means heavier and more expensive. OTOH the airbag wouldn’t be cheap and weightless either, you would probably need some kind of proximity sensor, it would be another system to break and maintain. Seat upgrade could be worthwhile, but I doubt it would be cheap. I would probably look into a more “potent” parachute and seat combination. I have a feeling, however, that it would be too costly to gain wider adoption, both in terms of payload and money. On new production (they are not cheap after all), perhaps; however, they would probably struggle with volume.
The Rallye (AKA Tin Parachute) might have gear that would permit this sort of descent. That’s a good question for the aeronautical engineers. I might consider it if my plane were a Minerva (220 HP).
