Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

There's the Cirrus save, and the Cirrus is a four seater airplane, but
it was done from controlled flight.

At the same time, I don't know of any failed BRS attempts, from
controlled flight or otherwise. Anybody have stats on that? That'd be
good data to have too.

"d b" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
the SR22 was a structural failure.

Vaughn

d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.

It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
hasn't been tested.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Interesting comment on BRS in the DG website -
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/rettungssystem-e.html

Not qualified to respond but does appear to make some sense.


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
situation.

THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.

It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
hasn't been tested.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"d b" wrote in message

one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
the SR22 was a structural failure.

The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use it...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"d b" wrote in message

one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
situation.


Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to
159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with
hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin
TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control
and
the SR22 was a structural failure.


The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use
it...

Marc
IIRC another Cirrus pilot tried to deploy the BRS, but the handle pull
was too great to activate. Landed safely, resulted in an AD for the
pull force on the handle.

Shawn

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole


Greg Cole!

bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :-

Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk .

But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems?

While it would be more satisfying to get answers from Greg, he doesn't
routinely monitor the group, so I will attempt some answers.

I don't know the diameter of the system currently used, but diameter
doesn't seem to important to the pilot!

And how did the
weight and balance work out?

CG is not a problem, as it is mounted very close to the CG. It does
reduce the allowed cockpit weight by the weight of the BRS system (about
30 pounds in the one I flew). The pilot could elect to fly without a
personal parachute, making the net loss in cockpit payload about 20 pounds.

Is it true you get a
weight increase on the "ultralight" definition from using a
BRS?

Yes, I'm told the FAA doesn't count a BRS system in the "empty weight".

Older FAA docs seemed to indicate this weight
increase was only for "powered" ultralights. Is the
weight increase 24 pounds, or what?

The one I flew was about 30 pounds, due to using the "high speed" chute,
rather than the lower speed chutes an ultralight would typically use.

A prospective purchaser should not take my remarks as definitive, but
should contact Windward Performance for the latest figures. I do talk to
Greg from time to time, most recently at the Convention, but I don't
follow the details closely.

Great stuff. I hope you sell two dozen more Sparrowhawks
this year. I can't wait to touch one in person...

You ought to come to the SparrowHawk Flyin, starting May 15, where you
can touch at least 5 (with more likely) of them! Bring your glider and
do some soaring in Eastern Oregon. Check their website for details.
Besides seeing the SparrowHawks, I think you'd enjoy seeing how they are
constructed, along the impressive array of molds and fixtures.

I'll be there with my glider to join the festivities and attempt some
state motorglider records (and maybe some records in a SparrowHawk, if I
can persuade an owner to get out his long enough).

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article . net,
d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

In article 402c2ce4$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:
In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

LOL...if my glider is missing a tail or wing and the
ASI is pegged, I'm gonna pull the BRS chute anyway.
If it does shred, at least it'll make a nice easy to see
marker on the splat point...

As far as saves already happened, these things just ain't been around that
long, and structural failures of gliders and planes are
REALLY very rare compared to ultralights...

So structural failure doesn't seem to be a big reason to
put on a BRS. Inadvertent IFR, mid-air, control surface (spoilers, elevator)
not hooked up, over unlandable terrain (15 knots impact is better
than 40), unrecoverable spin, student holding stick back or
forward in panic/suicide, etc. seem quite possible.

Would I rather have a BRS with a more crashworthy cockpit vs
a personal chute and flimsy cockpit? Personally, yes.
Would I want both? Personally, no. Would I prefer one
6 year repack vs. repacking a personal chute
18 times? Absolutely...

hmmm...I wonder how much the repacks cost (tightwad hat on)

..........

In fact I just got off the phone with BRS, and asked them about
repack of the 900 sealed canister, and they said it was
$600 (every 6 years). You mail them the canister,
then they mail you a repack...

Looks like about even for repack price, but convenience seems
a lot better than 12-18 repacks of a personal chute...

Perhaps a lot of this is moot, because they're
probably almost impossible to retrofit, and with
most new gliders being motorgliders, the space isn't
there, but for a new "pure" glider (sparrowhawk, AC-4,
etc), it loks good on paper at least...

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:

Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole


Greg Cole!

bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :-

Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk .

But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems?

While it would be more satisfying to get answers from Greg, he doesn't
routinely monitor the group, so I will attempt some answers.

I don't know the diameter of the system currently used, but diameter
doesn't seem to important to the pilot!

I talked to BRS and they said the 8" option was mostly so
folks could install an 8" of a certain weight rating, and
then switch to a higher "weight" canister later if
desired, without the diameter dimension changing...

Seems raesonable, since a higher "weight" rating I'd guess also
means "softer landing at a lower weight"

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402d3ccf$1@darkstar...
Perhaps a lot of this is moot, because they're
probably almost impossible to retrofit, and with
most new gliders being motorgliders, the space isn't
there, but for a new "pure" glider (sparrowhawk, AC-4,
etc), it loks good on paper at least...

Actually, a motor and a BRS are apparently not an impossible
combination because the Alpin TST1 glider that was saved by the BRS system
happened to be a motor glider. All aircraft are a bunch of compromises
flying in close formation. If the soaring world demanded motorgliders with
BRS systems, manufacturers would find a way to make them. I agree that
retrofit is a whole different deal.

The below is from the BRS site about that incident:

Flying his Czech-built Alpin TST1 ultralight motorglider, the pilot
could not exit a spin which went inverted. Though G forces were high, the
pilot successfully deployed his parachute to a satisfactory conclusion.

"I turned off the engine, slowly pulled back on the stick, and kicked
in left rudder. My plane went into the spin for the practice I wanted, but
it went inverted and I could not exit. At 2,000 feet I launched the chute
and I am alive. Thank you and you can chalk up another one, BRS!"



Vaughn