Jump to content

BRS... again?


Recommended Posts

I apologize up front if this is an old question... but since word search requires a minimum of 4 letters, I'll skip the archive and ask again. Has anyone had experience with fitting a recovery chute on the Cozy MKIV / Aerocanard design? I asked Nat Puffer about this over the phone... he said good planes don't fall out of the sky. He also said that interior size of his plane was fine and that I was too tall and fat. Now I'm looking at building an AeroCanard from plans... with a BRS. Any help is appreciated.

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

too tall?? How tall are you? As for fat, well, the plane is cozy and nat doesn't want unhappy builders that can't fit in plane. I'm 6'3 and was 215 when i flew in cozy. It was not spacious, but was fine, I wouldn't want someone bigger than me in front seat, it would be too tight. As for brs, make sure aileron hinge pins can't come out and fly the plane down. Emergency brake is to not lower nose wheel and grind off hockey puck, I hear the plane stops this way FAST

Mike

maker wood dust and shavings - foam and fiberglass dust and one day a cozy will pop out, enjoying the build

 

i can be reached at

 

http://www.canardcommunity.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 6' I'm not tall. At 250lbs, I am heavy (ie: no nose ballast after dropping off passengers!) Next year my schedule changes and I can start riding again so I'm not actually worried about weight. All I wanted from Nat is to find someone in my area who had one I could try on for "Coziness". Now that I found that Aerocanard has the "Plans Build" for their larger version... I'm going with that. Any increase in front interior space will add to comfort. As for the back seat, kids that fit in the back seat now may not later. That's my reasoning anyway.

 

But back to the BRS...

 

I'm not thinking about poping the chute every time the engine sputters. The BRS would be for worst case scenarios... the ultimate no-win situation. Spend a few hours searching through NTSB accident reports and you'll rethink the "I can always get to a landing area" idea. And for any of us to think that we are so much better pilots than the ones in the report is fataly egotistic. Most of my flying will be through a mountain range between the farm and my home. I think it is entirely reasonable to be prepared for an emergency without a place to land.

 

Quick landing in a field with a hocky puck and a prayer? If I really want to, I can get to the ground even quicker... straight into the side of Mount Eagle!

 

I just fail to understand why Cozy builders (and Nat) are so hostile toward the idea of a BRS.

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you think there is a hostility toward BRS from Cozy builders. I've never seen this.

 

From what I've read, there are concerns about a BRS in general with Canards (all Canards) because of the speed and because the engine is in the back. It just opens a whole new set of issues to deal with for chute deployment.

 

I don't really know anything about it myself. This is just my recollection of some past discussions I've read.

 

If you want to add a BRS to your plane then that is your right and choice. Just, like all mods, do it thoughtfully and carefully and seek professional help where needed.

 

And shame on Nat for telling you you're too tall and/or fat when he knows full well that he has builders/flyers that are at least 6' 3" tall. Also keep in mind that Nat is very closed minded when it comes to making any changes to the plans unless he has personally made the change (such as an electric nose lift). I understand where he is coming from but never ask Nat about making a change.

 

BTW - where are you located? I'm sure you can find someone more than happy to let you sit in a Cozy.

Rick Maddy

Denver, CO

Cozy Mk IV #824 - Chapter 18

http://www.maddyhome.com/cozy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a little taken aback by Nat myself... maybe I just caught him on a bad day.

 

As far as changes go... I guess he sees enough to worry him on a daily basis. But since he had such a bad initial reaction from Burt when he changed the Long EZ to a side-by-side, I thought he might be more open to new adaptations to his own design. I heard from one Cozy builder saying I should not ask about the AeroCanard design which enlarges the dimensions of the Cozy... something about lawyers and a big "can of worms"!?!?!?

 

>BTW - ...

 

I'm located in North GA a few miles south of Chattanooga, TN. Nat gave me the address (he didn't have the phone number) of someone south of Atlanta that is supposed to have a nice Cozy. I wrote to the person but haven't heard back from them. I just discovered that Blue Mtn avionics is nearby. I was thinking about calling up the owner and checking to see if he still has his Cozy. Oddly enough, the SQ2000 factory is also just north of Chattanooga. If I can't find one locally, I'm certain I'll find at least one at Sun N Fun 2003.

 

>I'm not sure why you think there is a hostility toward BRS from Cozy builders. I've never seen this.

 

I've only conversed with 2 builders (by e-mail) and Nat (by Phone) about BRS. Each of them replied to the BRS question by saying what Dust said: "Make sure your ailerons don't fall off and fly to the ground."; Very defensively I might add.

 

You brought up two good points though. The high speed problem has been resolved to my satisfaction, but the engine in the back is not a problem I've considered. A parachute wrapped up tight around a prop spindle can't be much assistance in an emergency situation. I wonder how wingco worked this out with their BWB Atlantica... http://www.wingco.com

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nat has ok'd a number of changes for me and others, but if they make a flying or structural change, he probably won't. But if he won't ok the change then think doubly hard about it and just don't call the plane a cozy, call it a marblez or whatever. You do notice that he never called the plane a long ez wide etc.

 

Once the plane flew and flew well, who did burt sign a royalty agreement with, nat puffer, who has never missed the payment, even when burt refused them at beech's request!

 

I read the accident reports constantly. Every year it is the same

 

Knowingly flying from good to bad weather

Hot dogging it(100 mph 10 ft over desert/lake etc)

Fuel starvation

 

 

A parachute requires a huge amount of structural engineering and testing on any airframe, let alone a high performance one. Trying to deploy at 200+ mph creates quite a force.

 

The sr series has had a number of accidents and only once has the parachute been deployed, looks like it was after faulty work on aileron.

 

Enjoy

Mike

maker wood dust and shavings - foam and fiberglass dust and one day a cozy will pop out, enjoying the build

 

i can be reached at

 

http://www.canardcommunity.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Nat gets anal about changes because if a bad one causes an accident, Cozy gets tarred as a dangerous airplane - by the lawyers and the insurance companies. Burt got out of the business because of this situation. Nat, to his credit, got into the business right when it was becoming a problem for Burt and stayed in spite of it. Try to remember that he has been around for over 25 years and has seen every lame brained, off the wall, doofus idea that has surfaced. Most of them again and again as new crops of builders have the same brain farts as their predecessors.

 

What some would describe as hostility to BRS, others might view as healthy skepticism. I've seen some of the literature, heard some of the presentations and I'm *very* skeptical. They claim to have thoroughly tested these systems, but to me the tests resemble all those anti ballistic missle tests - conditions all very carefully set up to ensure a successful test, but which we may very well not be able to replicate in a real life situation. If I were looking at BRS, I would be asking a lot of questions about the tests. Like, what airplane(s) did they test? What did they weigh, what were they doing and how fast were they going when the chute was deployed. What structural mods were required for harnessing the chute to the airframe, what kind of terrain did they drop the plane into and what sort of impact did they experience. If I was satisfied that I had accurate answers to these and other questions, I would still be faced with the engineering challenge of adapting those numbers to a Cozy.

 

I would hazard a guess that aside from liftoff and touchdown, the Cozy is operating entirely outside the energy envelope of a BRS system. For any assurance at all of successful, deployment I would have to get back inside the envelope with the prop stopped. In what kinds of situations would I need to deploy the chute? If I found myself in such a situation, could I get the airplane inside the chute envelope, with the prop stopped, and how, exactly would I accomplish that.

 

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. The couple of times I asked them to the BRS folks at OSH and Sun-Fun, they pretty much dodged them all. I got a lot of glib answers and vague assurances that "...everything will be all right..." This was all a while back. Maybe things have changed. I know the systems have gotten better, but will they still work in a Cozy? Nobody was ready to tell me what to fasten the chute to and what to do about the prop.

 

Lots more questions than answers out there .... Jim S.

...Destiny's Plaything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BRS would be used when (1) the plane can't be flown to a relatively safe landing spot (as in, engine stopped), or (2) the plane is out of control (canard departure, locked controls, wing failure, etc.)

 

What about the engine/prop cutting through the BRS?

Your BRS could be rigged with an auto-kill switch that would kill the engine when activated. Also, thick cables are typically used to attach the BRS canopy lines to the plane. In ultra-lights, the cabling is thick enough to stop the engine before the propeller can slice through the cables. So no problem here.

 

What about deployment loads onto the airframe?

The deployment speed of the BRS chute can be slowed down to minimize forces back into the airframe. This can be accomplished through judicious use of risers and twist windings of the canopy lines. (Watch the Shuttle the next time it lands! The crew deploys the drag chute. All the canopy lines are twisted to keep the chute from immediately opening and ripping the back end off the Shuttle. As the canopy fills, the lines untwist, allowing the canopy to open more and more until fully deployed. It does take time to do this, so you'll need more time (ALTITUDE) for the canopy to open and slow the plane before reaching the impact point.

 

What about attachment to Canard Airframe?

The Cirrus' BRS (CAPS) suspends the plane from four attachment points such that the plane floats down in a flat attitude at near 60 MPH. For canards, most everyone recognizes that the centersection spar is the most ideal attachment point for at least 2 points of the 4-point cradle. Would there be any other suitable attachment points forward for the other two points of the cradle? Hmmmm. So without substantial beef-up of forward attachment points, we now have the potential for nose-down impact. Is 60 MPH nose down any more survivable than <70 MPH in a flare attitude?

 

I do agree wholeheartedly that I'd pull the BRS if I lost control of the airplane.

 

So, do I agree BRS is a good thing? Yes. Would I buy one if it were available with an engineered, tested solution for Cozies? Probably, but after I had all the other things like engine and IFR avionics. Do I want to take the time to figure out all the engineering? No. I want to fly ASAP.

 

Ahhh, thinking's fun. It don't cost nuthin.

 

Wayne Hicks

Wayne Hicks

Cozy IV Plans #678

http://www.ez.org/pages/waynehicks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, the speed issue is addressed with some form of disk that holds the lines together until the drag of the partially-opened parachute slows the aircraft down enough to fully open. BRS is not my first priority right now since I'm still researching which aircraft to build. When I do start building, I need to know up front what structural changes, if any, are needed.

 

I'm not fixated on the idea of a BRS. I like the concept but I'm not fully convinced yet. My wife on the other hand saw something on TV about it. Now she says the only way she's getting in any small plane with the kids is if it has a BRS. Maybe I just need a Varieze...

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne,

I can't help thinking this whole idea of BRS needs a lot more examination and some specific questions answered.

<... canard departure ... locked controls ... wing failure ...>

Canard departures (both of them in all these years) seem to occur at high speeds which immediately get MUCH higher. I've heard of no wing failures. Instances of locked controls that I've heard of unlocked when the pilot quit doing the mischief he was doing. If I thought my workmanship and building ability was so piss poor that I could expect ANY of the conditions you listed, I'd be a fool to fly the airplane at all. To me, the situations you list sound bogus. Marbleturtle talks about flying mostly in mountainous terrain. I could stretch and maybe see a requirement there. Otherwise, it's like missle defense - we're going to HUGE trouble and expense to acquire a device that won't solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 

As to a auto-kill switch: Shutting down the engine and stopping the prop are two entirely different things. I would suggest that deployment of a BRS at any significant speed would accomplish several unhappy events: A) it would wind the chute cable around the prop, pretty much assuring that you descend 90 deg nose down, B) All opening forces would now be along the longitudinal axis, kind of like ramming the plane into a wall, C) the plane would descend 90 deg nose down at (you said) 60 mph. You stop dead in about 3 feet but the engine keeps going until it smashes through you into the rocks. That is a GUARANTEED fatal situation. If you'd flown the plane to a controlled crash landing, you might slide along the ground for maybe a couple of hundred feet while wings, canard, landing gear sheared off absorbing the energy of the maybe 75 - 80 mph touchdown speed. Give me that one every time.

 

If we examine your stated descent speed of 60 mph, even in a totally flat attitude, you stop in about 3 feet when you hit the ground. The gear spreading out won't absorb much of the impact, so you're really stopping in a few inches. Again, an assured fatality. Compare again to the distance you'll slide and break up if you ditched.

 

You skipped very briefly over how the chute might be attached to the airframe and dismissed altogether the 4-point attachment apparently recommended by the manufacturer in favor of a steep nose down descent that would make the pilot hit first, and require the engine to go through him before it found something to stop it.

 

I have to say that even in very rough terrain, I would prefer a 75 mph ditching that takes a hundred feet to stop over a 60 mph (or even 40 mph) vertical descent with only a couple of feet to stop. There is a VAST difference in survivability between vertical and (nearly) horizontal impact situations.

 

Is there any history at all of successful deployment of a BRS in an actual emergency on an airplane weighing over 1500 lbs and making over 150 mph when things went south? I know they work OK on ultralights, but that's not what we're discussing here.

 

What with catastrophic airframe failure (which doesn't happen) and catastrophic descent rates under this chute, you've pretty much made me a lot more skeptical than I was when this thread started ... Jim S.

...Destiny's Plaything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the "facts" thrown around here don't sound right...

 

60mph? The decent number I've seen is 15-30 ft/sec which is 20 miles/hour max by my rusty head calculator.

 

1500lbs too heavy? The test vehicles I've seen are a Cessna 172 and a SR20 -->

http://www.airplaneparachutes.com/

I know this site lists many ultralight saves... but there are one or two I saw listed at heavier craft and 200mph

 

The speed issue (as I mentioned before) seems to be resolved with a slider that holds the parachute closed until the drag slows the craft down to 160 mph, which then allows the chute to open. Although its obviously not the same chute system... I seem to remember certain Appolo space captules streaking through the atmosphere at 28,000+ mph before deploying parachutes. Surely someone somewhere remembers how to get those things to work 250mph.

 

A productive discussion requires real "facts".

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Marbleturtle,

I am sorry if I offended you. However, I would prefer to be honest up-front in telling people what the limitations of our design are, rather than have them discover many thousands of dollars and years later that they have been mis-led.

Here are the facts;

1) We have builders as tall as 6 foot 6 inches. I coach them on what simple changes, which I have approved, they can make to either increase the leg room or head room, or both.

2)We have builders over 220 lbs, in fact some 300 lbs or more, but I advise them they should make the front seat a bench seat, and either take up only very light passengers, or sit in the middle of the front seat with no front seat passengers at all.

3) The 400 lb limit in the front seat was my judgement call, based on c.g.and structural limitations. I and others have flown with more than 400 lbs in the front seat, but performance is degraded. It takes longer and a higher speed to rotate, and landing speed and distance is increased. Normal operation with more than 400 lbs in the frontseat is considered by me to be unacceptable.

4) Buying Cozy plans from someone else, or plans based on our design for an airplane that looks like ours will have the same limitations. If you are told differently, you are being mis-led, because we did the flight testing on this design.

5)I would rather not sell plans than mislead someone about the capabilities or our design.

6) As for BRS, it would take a lot of experimentation and testing with a canard pusher design to determin what it would take to make it work. This would be very expensive, because the airframe would probably be totalled, after deploying a chute and hitting the ground. It could not be proven safe without occupants during testing, which would risk serious or fatal injuries.

7) We have been flying over mountains now for 24 years in one or more canard pushers with aircraft engines, and I have never had nor could I visualize a situation where I would be willing to pull the cord, be completely helpless, and trust my fate to an uncontrolled touchdown in an uncertain location, particularly in the mountains.

Again, if I offended you, I am sorry. Better that, however, than to mislead you.

Best regards,

Nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<... Some of the "facts" thrown around here don't sound right ...>

I couldn't agree more

 

<... 60mph? The decent number I've seen is 15-30 ft/sec which is 20 miles/hour ...>

True. I knew 60 was off by a LOT but I didn't know how much. I was using someone else's number. My apologies to all for not seriously questioning that 60 mph sink rate. But even at 20 mph, most of my arguments are still germane (if far less compelling).

 

As I said, it's been a while since I paid attention to that technology so slow blossom chutes and the capability to save fast moving airplanes is new to me. How reliable is that part of it? Has it been tested much at high speeds? Anyway, I should have stressed more that my information was dated. What do they cost now?

 

I still wonder about the utility of the thing. I don't regard airframe disintegration as a failure mode that we should equip ourselves for. I'm weird that way. Before we go much farther I think it would be appropriate to look through the accident reports and examine just how many of fatalities might have been realistically (key word here) prevented by a BRS system. Then we can let our imaginations run wild speculating how many accidents might have been caused by the weight and bulk of the system. Another wonderful exercize in mental masturbation :)

 

I'll start reading a little more before I write .... Jim S.

...Destiny's Plaything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Sower:

Don't know quite what to say except:

1. People have died from canard departures and aileron lockups. Doesn't sound bogus to me.

2. Are you a CSA member? Please go read the article by a pilot who survived aileron lockup after a high-G turn. He had to re-establish high-G before he could unlock the aileron.

3. Yeah, it's a stretch to lose a main wing, about a long a stretch as hitting a goose in the clouds with ice over its eyes and knocking a hole in your wing. Everyone knows that geese are more intelligent pilots than humans when it comes to flying in ice -- they don't.

4. The thick cables will stop the prop and/or shatter the prop before it can entangle the canopy.

5. Please read again the part about the slow-opening canopy reducing the forces to the airframe. I'll be happy to explain the reefing systems that NASA uses to deploy the chutes on the Solid Rocket Boosters, and what they used on the Apollo command modules. I've already stated how it's done on the Shuttle.

6. I thought I stated very clearly that impacting the ground in a vertical orientation was not preferred -- chute or no chute.

7. The Cirrus article in an AOPA magazine cited 60 MPH, not me.

8. Re-read. I advocated the 4-point attachment.

Wayne Hicks

Cozy IV Plans #678

http://www.ez.org/pages/waynehicks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nat. Apology accepted. I was a little taken aback after talking on the phone with you. But I am aware that the weight needs to come down. My Father said that you are Ex-military from the WWII generation and that you probably have no patience for idle chit-chat or placating whiney customers... "An honest rebuke is always better than false flattery. And He's right. Get your butt off the couch and loose some weight!" My wife reminded me of the time I asked a customer when her baby was due when I was a BMW salesman. I learned the hard way that unless you see an "outtie" belly button indentation under a "Baby On Board" T-shirt, don't ask a fat woman when her baby is due. She bought a Benz. (Wider seats!)

 

Anyway I originally brought up the subject of BRS to see if anyone had first hand experience installing a system on their airframe. I think that 99.99% of all problems I'll face in a Canard can be solved with enough altitude and a good glide ratio. But my wife is completely freaked by a small airplane. The mother-in-law has never even flown commercially. Guess what the conversation with her is going to be like when SHE finds out I'm building my own plane.

 

I don't need my wife's permission to build the plane, but without a BRS, she says I'll be flying Solo.

 

I'm almost to the point where I don't care if it works or not. If it makes my wife feel safer, like airbags in her car, then that's all that matters. I have no intention of using it if I have even the smallest hope of recovery or emergency landing. The only way I would deploy it is if an aileron fell off, no... the whole wing fell off (caused by a severe impact with a meteor)... or something else equally drastic that will probably never happen. (I'm eyeing the Canadian Geese in my back yard suspiciously as I type this.) If it doesn't work, I'm no worse off for having it. If it does work, listening to my wife say "I told you so" will be the price I pay for surviving. (Then again maybe I should duct tape a short piece of rope with a handle to the canopy and call it a day.) I just want to build a great airplane and go places with my wife and kids.

 

The only down side I see is if mounting the system structurally compromises the airframe in some manner... that and possible the price. This is why I posed the question.

 

I have everything else sorted out. I have private hangar space with a small office I can rent for $80 a month on a 5000' runway (ILS soon to be added). I know I want the Cozy MKIV or the slightly larger AeroCanard (to be settled when I get a chance to try on a Cozy for size). I know what engine I want. I know the instruments I'm going to use. I even decided on a paint scheme (no dark colors). What's left?

 

Frustrating...

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>maybe I should duct tape a short piece of rope with a handle to the canopy and call it a day

There you have it. Add a couple of wires and some gold foil to make it look expensive and you're good to go. No-one will ever know.

 

>What's left?

Well, what about the engine? Many are considering, building and flying alternatives in this area.

 

>People have died from canard departures and aileron lockups

Look at these accidents more closely. You'll find that the canard departure ( A VeriEZ near Palm Springs) was caused by a combination of severe turbulance and unbalanced elevators generating flutter. When you see the plans you'll understand why this is a SERIOUS builder error. Importance of elevator balance is VERY STRONGLY emphasized. Next read Dave Domier's account of his broken prop blade (cause by a failure of exhaust heat muff, now fully documented and possibility removed) and resultant canard vibration. The canard didnt depart, or even require repair, despite vibrating at such a pitch that the tips were invisible. These canards, built and attached correctly, will take a hell of a lot of abuse.

 

As for the aileron lock-up, this is also discussed in depth in the plans - the aileron gap MUST be so wide (1/8 I think it is), or flexing can cause lock-up. Stick to the carefully specified and oft repeated instructions in the plans and these two problems are non issues.

 

 

Now let me address size for a minute. I built a nice center console for my Cozy. It has a Vans throttle quadrant and my fuel injection system panel built in. Even has the microswitches for canopy / gear warning. Then someone (who shall remain nameless) who has fairly wide hips tried out the right seat. They got in ok, but "overflowed" the assigned area a little. It was clear that blood circulation would be cut off in their left leg by the console. I measured the distance between the armrest and console at the widest point. 17.5 inches. I took out the console reverting to the bench seat approach and retried the seating. All is now well. I think a reasonably "oversized" person would be more comfortable in my Cozy right seat than in Delta economy class.

 

Another issue to consider is weight and balance. In any given airplane the airfoils are designed to lift max weight of x with a take-off speed a, landing speed of b, and C of G between y and z. SO ... you widen the fuselage and now have room for two 300 lb gorrilas in the front seats. You'll be overweight by the time you balance them to get the CG right and have fuel to go somewhere. Fly overweight and you're critical speeds will increase. Any canard with the same airfoil and power profile has the same limitation. Doesnt mean it can't be done. It's just highly NOT RECOMMENDED. I once flew a couple of guys in my PA160 piper. I didnt know till they arrived at the field that they were both pro football players. 6' 6" and 280lbs each. When I saw them I told the lineman to "hold that fuel". I had a 10,000 ft of runway to play with and it was a fairly cold morning. We got airborne, barely, with the stall warning lit the first 200 feet. I climbed out of the SIDE of the class C airspace, but we made it. What do they say? " I learned about flying from that!"

 

Regards,

John Slade (160lbs + my 33lb AC System)

I can be reached on the "other" forum http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The mother-in-law has never even flown commercially.

I had an Aunt like that. She was a lobster lover. I offered to take her to Block Island for an all-you-can eat lobster dinner. Flew straight & level. No turns at all. She flew with me a bunch of times after that and never turned a hair.

 

You might find that the opportunity to visit people, and take weekend trips halfway across the country will override the wife's fears. Show her the NTSB reports for Cozy. I don't think you'll a one that wasnt either pilot or builder error. Now show her the NTSB reports on the 757. Introduce her to you're EAA tech councilor and, most important, get her involved in the process. The more she see's the care and attention you put into the building, the more she'll realize that THIS airplane is going to be a much surer bet than anything that was maintained by a $10/hour uncertified mechanic who has his/her work signed off by an A&P who HAS to sign it off, or find another job. (My step son is an A&P who has related exactly that story at a number of "sweat shop" maintenance facilities for well know airlines). In YOUR airplane, you'll know every nut, bolt, washer, wire and cable is the right type and is installed correctly. I wish I could say the same of the big jets I ride on a regular basis.

 

Finally, there's always the dreaded AIDs (Aviation Induced Divorce). After a long flight over-the-top, my wife told me she'd never ride in a small plane again.

 

Did I say wife. I meant ex-wife.

I can be reached on the "other" forum http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... now my wife just came in here and threw a fit about the time I spend on the computer. (Let's forget for a moment that I'm a programmer and the computer pays the bills!) I'm beginning to think Slade has the right idea.

 

Nat... I'll call you soon but I want to get to try a local Cozy on for size first. That will ultimately finalize my decision. I'm actually looking for a snug fit (like the sport seats in my car), just not an impossible fit.

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had two engine outs.... One in IFR 4000 ft and landed on a dirt strip in the woods... the other, VFR, I was able to make it back to an airport with a trashed engine. If I had a BSR who know what I would have done..?? Although the thought of a BRS is interesting, I would rather pick the place I crash. The easiest way to put a BRS on your airplane is on your back. (much cheaper too).

Regards, Nick

___________________________________

Charleston, SC LongEZ, N29TM, 2400 hrs

http://www.canardzone.com/members/nickugolini/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is true that with a BRS, some people might be inclined to yank the cord when they could continue to fly the plane to a safe emergency landing site. But I don't think that is a valid argument against having a device that could save your life in an extreme incident.

This ain't rocket surgery!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Hicks,

<... People have died from canard departures and aileron lockups. Doesn't sound bogus to me ...>

It does to me. Canard departures are a serious incident, but NOT a serious risk. I know of only two canard departures. One was a canard that was not bolted on. The other was at high speed in severe turbulence. The first IIRC happened too low to be saved by BRS, the second would have been in a vertical dive above 250 kts before the chute could deploy. I have serious doubts that BRS would have saved that plane. I concede that it would obviously have saved the passenger since the passenger seat would have been occupied by the BRS and the passenger would have had to hitch-hike or take a bus to wherever they were going :)

 

<... Are you a CSA member? Please go read the article by a pilot who survived aileron ...>

I am. I did. In the aileron lockup situation you described, wasn't there something about aileron ends cut parallel to air flow rather than normal to the hinge line (as per plans) and/or the gaps between the aileron ends and the wing being quite small?

 

<... Yeah, it's a stretch to lose a main wing ...> Agreed.

So far, you've put forth a very convincing confirmation of Nat's position that "... good airplanes don't need BRS ..."

 

<... about a long a stretch as hitting a goose ...>

Beg to differ. I have to insist that bird strikes are a good bit more common than wings falling off.

I will concede a bit of poetic license on the iced up eyes and ears :)

 

<... thick cables will stop the prop and/or shatter the prop before it can entangle ...>

We are both operating on conjecture here. I am using a (currently very fashonable and popular) prop that HAS brought a plane home normally with minimal and easily repairable damage after the (ENTIRE) lower cowl fell off and went through the prop. I speculate that such a prop might just wind up a couple of turns of cable around the shaft before it "shattered". Who knows for sure? How would one test that?

Maybe if we installed explosive bolts on the engine mounts and jettisoned the engine as part of the BRS deployment sequence ... :)

 

<... the part about the slow-opening canopy reducing the forces ...>

That sounds reasonable and reassuring. I didn't know it was in place. Is that a feature of current BRS products, or is it something that might become a feature if ... and ...?

 

<... thought I stated very clearly that impacting the ground in a vertical orientation was not preferred -- chute or no chute ...> Well duuuuhh!

Actually, we agree completely on that. I thought you inferred pretty clearly that you did not know how to avoid vertical orientation with the chute. Like when you said "Would there be any other suitable attachment points forward for the other two points of the cradle? Hmmmm. So without substantial beef-up of forward attachment points, we now have the potential for nose-down impact?"

 

<... Cirrus article in an AOPA magazine cited 60 MPH, not me ...>

Maybe 60 mph was the forward speed of the Cirrus and BRS didn't work faster than that. I don't know. I didn't read the article. 60 mph is definitely not a vertical speed. 20 mph would be a reasonable max.

 

<... Re-read. I advocated the 4-point attachment ...>

I did. You did. You did not speculate on how that might be accomplished, and seemed to concede that a nose down BRS approach might well be the way of things: "Hmmmm. So without substantial beef-up of forward attachment points, we now have the potential for nose-down impact" Nothing said here about how the (forward, flat attitude enabling) cables might deploy without taking arms etc. with them, but that's another matter.

 

<... Is 60 MPH nose down any more survivable than <70 MPH in a flare attitude? ...> Let's assume you meant 20 mph.

I don't think so. I would suggest that 20 mph nose down is LESS survivable than 70 mph or even 80 mph in a flare attitude. Neither of us can speak with authority on the specifics of this issue, but personally, I would prefer 75-80 mph flying engine out to 20 mph in a BRS (PARTICULARLY nose down, but even flat) every time.

 

Back to math. 20 mph is just under 30 fps. 30 fps is how fast a brick is going when dropped from a height of 15 ft. I propose that we put together the cabin portion of an EZ or Cozy. You outfit it with any upholstery you please. Strap in as securely as you please. I'll hire a crane and hoist your "airplane" 15 ft in the air and cut it loose. Any attitude you choose - flat or nose down (BTW, if you choose nose down, let's put a 300 lb rock behind you to simulate the engine). FIFTEEN FEET!

 

Basically, I'm not in any way prepared to dedicate the entire back seat of my EZ, or at least half of the back seat of my Cozy or Velocity to a very heavy, bulky, expensive device that may or may not save my bacon in the event of a "possible emergency" that hasn't been clearly or convincingly described. Sort of analogous a crop duster wearing a parachute. It's undeniably a safety device, but of no particular value to a guy that never sees 200' agl.

 

I believe sir, that it's all been said. I am not going to convince you that BRS is not a good thing, and you are not going to convince me that it is. Most of the facts available are on the table. Most of the relevant arguments are too. Others can make up their own minds on the merits of what's already been said. I believe we should all move on before someone starts getting pissed.

 

Best Regards, Jim S.

...Destiny's Plaything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marbleturtle,

Is it safe to assume that by now you are aware of my position around BRS and my desire to have some influence over my destiny during the later stages of an inflight "situation"?

 

I also have a wife. She's a lot like yours. Guess they all are.

 

In the interest of being convincing, suppose you were to:

A. Install a custom shaped yellow-black striped bag above your spar under the turtleback and lable it "BRS - do not touch".

B. Install (tightly, way in the corner of your panel) a yellow-black striped T-handle attached to a few inches of broken, frayed cable, and labeled "BRS - do not touch".

 

Now, if ever you do encounter one of those "intense learning experiences", you would:

1. Get yourself together and set up in whatever course of action is appropriate

2. As soon as you have a few spare seconds, yank the broken cable out of the panel

3. Say "OH sh*t!!" really loud

4. Get on with what you were doing all along.

 

Just a theory :) ... Jim S.

 

PS Where did you get a hangar at a good airfield for $75 ??

...Destiny's Plaything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Marbleturtle,

I have a suggestion.

Why don't you contact BRS and tell them you wish to build a Cozy Mark IV, and you would like to install a BRS chute. Ask them if they could instruct you as to how to do it, would they guarantee it would work without totalling the airplane or injuring any of the passengers, and how much it would cost.

Then let the rest of us know the answer.

Best regards,

Nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information