A thought on BRS

I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but I'm
not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a very
good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.

I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of hitting
the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
broken back.

For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to me.
At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider. The 35 pounds
or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but I'm
not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a very
good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.

I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of hitting
the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
broken back.

I believe the current designs lower the glider nose down, and the
cockpit has to be properly designed to avoid injury to the pilot, as it
must absorb the impact. It's not a simple problem, and gliders that
aren't designed for it from the start almost surely won't be suitable
for retrofitting.


For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to me.
At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider.

Certainly a much more practical addition!

The 35 pounds
or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:07:37 -0700, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

Bill Daniels wrote:
..../....

The 35 pounds
or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.

Surely, as the BRS would be installed on or just behind the CG, it
would be more like carrying a turbo in that the cockpit load would
remain as before but the permitted amount of water ballast would be
decreased.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:07:37 -0700, Eric Greenwell
wrote:


Bill Daniels wrote:

..../....


The 35 pounds

or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.


Surely, as the BRS would be installed on or just behind the CG, it
would be more like carrying a turbo in that the cockpit load would
remain as before but the permitted amount of water ballast would be
decreased.

I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.

A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
news:Jxvjc.42417$GR.5925024@attbi_s01...
I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but
I'm
not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a
very
good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.

I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of
hitting
the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
broken back.

For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to
me.
At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider. The 35 pounds
or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

Bill Daniels
Bill,
I talked to the BRS people at the SSA convention a couple of years ago
regarding fitting one of their syatems to the Nimbus. They said no dice
because the energy absorption characteristics of the cockpit configuration,
descent rate, etc., etc., just wouldn't work.
Just as you said.
Streifeneder has been doing some certificatoin work in Germany on a retrofit
package for some ship but I do'nt remember the details. It looks like some
of the newer gliders may be taking the BRS sytem into account in in their
initial design now however.Too bad there's not an off the shelf retrofit
package.
Cheers!, Pete