BRS for emergencies

The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim

On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim


Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well past redline. It
reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated with the
pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped into the seat pan.

The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage descended
safely to the ground.

It would be difficult for any recovery system to work well once the
aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.

The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very encouraging
to me.

The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation on this
site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.

George Y

bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

Earlier, George Young wrote:

Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot.

He never said it was deployed by the pilot.

The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped
into the seat pan.

Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.

the wreckage descended safely to the ground.

All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
false.

Thanks, Bob K.

One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

If you size the BRS system to the ballasted gross weight, you end up
needing a rather large system that costs a lot and takes up a lot of
internal volume.

On the other hand, if you size the BRS to the dry gross weight you
have a system that is overmatched under many flight regimes, including
many in which BRS capability is most desirable - such as climbing away
from a start at a crowded contest site.

You could placard the system into compliance with a sticker that says
"Dump ballast before deploying BRS" or "Do not deploy BRS while
ballasted." But that doesn't address an important issue: most ballast
dump systems can't empty the water out in less than about a minute,
and some take as much as three or five minutes.

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)


Shawn

shawn wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)

Might as well remove the tail boom, too. This would reduce the glider to
just the cockpit with the pilot. Having a known weight, shape, and size
to control would make it substantially easier for the rescue system
designer. It would speed the certification process, because only one
shape would need to be tested, instead of configurations with all
surfaces attached, one or both wings missing, tail missing, etc.

It would be a very safe glider, as most pilots would never get in it!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:
shawn wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off
with the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water
ballast. With just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller
too ;-)

Might as well remove the tail boom, too. This would reduce the glider to
just the cockpit with the pilot. Having a known weight, shape, and size
to control would make it substantially easier for the rescue system
designer. It would speed the certification process, because only one
shape would need to be tested, instead of configurations with all
surfaces attached, one or both wings missing, tail missing, etc.

It would be a very safe glider, as most pilots would never get in it!


Just put in an ejection seat and you can eliminate the BRS altogether!

On Sep 13, 12:38 pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

If you size the BRS system to the ballasted gross weight, you end up
needing a rather large system that costs a lot and takes up a lot of
internal volume.

On the other hand, if you size the BRS to the dry gross weight you
have a system that is overmatched under many flight regimes, including
many in which BRS capability is most desirable - such as climbing away
from a start at a crowded contest site.

You could placard the system into compliance with a sticker that says
"Dump ballast before deploying BRS" or "Do not deploy BRS while
ballasted." But that doesn't address an important issue: most ballast
dump systems can't empty the water out in less than about a minute,
and some take as much as three or five minutes.

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

Bob K.

How about the pilot dumps the water after activating the BRS ?
If the BRS held the aircraft in a level attitude, the water would
dump.

Todd Smith
3S

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

From the ground, preferably :-).

Tony V
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING