Cessna BRS

[Skyman1957]

Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
parachute option? Yes or No.

Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
theory works. Thanks in advance!

Skyman1957

[john smith[_2_]]

In article . com>,
"Skyman1957" > wrote:

> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!

Still to early.
Cessna only has one flying prototype.
There is no mention of preliminary study on the BRS website.
Cessna has not made any mention of including it.

[Skyman1957]

Thanks John. But what I'm looking for is your gut feeling, not
evidence of. The theory is that asked a straight forward question
the majority or average response of a large number of people is allot
more reliable than individual experts. From the book "The Wisdom of
Crowds" if your interested.


On Apr 13, 5:01 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> "Skyman1957" > wrote:
> > Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> > parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> > Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> > theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Still to early.
> Cessna only has one flying prototype.
> There is no mention of preliminary study on the BRS website.
> Cessna has not made any mention of including it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!

Yes. It seems to be a big factor in people choosing a new plane, such as in
the Cirrus.

Also, it will help people moving up from ultralights be comfortable with it.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!

Given that the BRS has long been available for the 150/152, 172 and 182, yet I
have never seen one, I would say that the market has spoken. (or as least is
speaking)

I don't know what the projected payload of the new Cessna LSA might be, but a
152 with full tanks is damn near a one passenger plane, given the weight of
today's typical pilot. (do you want fries with that?) Not much payload left to
waste on new systems.

Vaughn

[Drew Dalgleish]

My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.

On 13 Apr 2007 16:06:34 -0700, "Skyman1957" >
wrote:

>Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
>parachute option? Yes or No.
>
>Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
>theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
>Skyman1957
>

[Peter Dohm]

> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Skyman1957
>
NO. At least not as standard equipment.

Peter

[Jim Logajan]

"Skyman1957" > wrote:
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!

My useless opinion:

Since LSA already exist with BRS either as an option or as standard
equipment, I think they will have to strongly consider it from a marketing
perspective. When all is said and done, though, I think they wont because
the bean-counters will win over the marketers.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On 13 Apr 2007 16:06:34 -0700, "Skyman1957" >
wrote:

>Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
>parachute option? Yes or No.
>
>Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
>theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
>Skyman1957

I think that BRS's are a stupid addition to an aircraft on a number of
accounts.

they allow idiots to go to sleep on the consequences of their actions
and fly needlessly into danger in the belief that the brs will recover
from all mistakes.

aircraft structural engineering is a known methodology which can
produce structurally competent aircraft. There is absolutely no excuse
for bringing structurally doubtful ultralights into existence.

maintenance on aircraft is a known methodology and there is no excuse
for structural defects due to maintenance neglect.

deploying a BRS results in destruction of an aircraft.

deploying a BRS effectively removes the ability to control an aircraft
to a successful forced landing.

deploying a BRS can kill you. ask the people who discovered the
ultralighters that deployed their BRS for some unknown reason and both
died when it plonked them upside down into a field in australia

Cessna particularly have a history of engineering and producing
aircraft that can fly thousands of hours and survive for at least a
quarter century. Why would they ever need to put in a BRS???

Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell]

"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Skyman1957
>

I vote it will be an option, but not included.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> I vote it will be an option, but not included.

I would concur with that.

An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
imited aircraft.

Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
none-the-less dictates the design.

[John Kimmel]

Skyman1957 wrote:
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Skyman1957
>
My gut feeling is that Cessna will install ballistic parachutes when
motorcycles start coming equipped with seat belts.

--
John Kimmel


I think it will be quiet around here now. So long.

[James Sleeman]

On Apr 14, 12:52 pm, (Drew Dalgleish)
wrote:
> My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.

I'd wager with you that you are wrong. There is a LOT of money in
LSA, and it's money that will not go into thier existiing aircraft if
they did not go through with LSA production. Cessna would be total
fools to not go through with the plans for the planes.

[Peter Dohm]

"James Sleeman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 14, 12:52 pm, (Drew Dalgleish)
> wrote:
> > My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.
>
> I'd wager with you that you are wrong. There is a LOT of money in
> LSA, and it's money that will not go into thier existiing aircraft if
> they did not go through with LSA production. Cessna would be total
> fools to not go through with the plans for the planes.
>
Cessna is also a long time proponent of having a "family" of airplanes, so
that a new pilot can begin with an entry level aircraft and then move up an
finances and experience justify. Since LSA is currently touted, mainly by
FAA, as a "stepping stone" rating, I agree with you that Cessna will almost
certainly produce an LSA.

Peter

[Phil]

Don,t know if Cessna will offer a BRS for the LSA model , they should sell
millions of them at only $ 100,000 a piece , one can get a nice Aeronca or T
Craft for $ 25,000 , these new planes are tauted as the every-man,s plane ,
most of the croud that I hang with won't be able to afford a 1/10 of a
million dollar plane.
Middlefield Phil
"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Skyman1957
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> I vote it will be an option, but not included.
>
> I would concur with that.
>
> An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
> imited aircraft.
>
> Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
> none-the-less dictates the design.

I agree. The weight will kill it. What suprises me is that the FAA didn't
grant a wiaver for BRS weight in LSA as they did in for ultralights with
floats.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> john smith wrote:
>> An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
>> imited aircraft.
>>
>> Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
>> none-the-less dictates the design.
>
> I agree. The weight will kill it.

What exactly is the weight penalty for a BRS? For an LSA my understanding
is that total system weight was in the ~29 to ~35 lb range. (Or put another
way, around 5 to 6 gallons of fuel.)

Price penalty would probably in the ~US$4100 to 4500 range.

Both BRS Parachutes and Magnum Parachutes seem to offer comparable products
in price and system weights:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=84
http://www.magnumparachutes.com/products.htm

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> john smith wrote:
>>> An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
>>> imited aircraft.
>>>
>>> Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
>>> none-the-less dictates the design.
>>
>> I agree. The weight will kill it.
>
> What exactly is the weight penalty for a BRS? For an LSA my
> understanding is that total system weight was in the ~29 to ~35 lb
> range. (Or put another way, around 5 to 6 gallons of fuel.)
>
> Price penalty would probably in the ~US$4100 to 4500 range.
>
> Both BRS Parachutes and Magnum Parachutes seem to offer comparable
> products in price and system weights:
>
> http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=84
> http://www.magnumparachutes.com/products.htm

That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be done to
the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't seem like a lot
it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA and it is weight that is much
further back than the fuel tanks so it will count for more in virtually any
LSA installation.

Don't forget to add to the price that it will have to repacked every 6
years. While I don't know what they charge I'd bet it ain't cheap.

Plus I never really liked the idea of having an explosive device right
behind my head. And yes, I not particularly thrilled about having one in
front of me aimed at my chest in my car either, but a lot more of those have
been built and I figure most of the bugs have been worked out.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote>

>That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be done
>to the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't seem like a
>lot it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA

130+ pounds? No way!
--
Jim in NC

[Al G[_1_]]

"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
> parachute option? Yes or No.
>
> Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
> theory works. Thanks in advance!
>
> Skyman1957
>

As standard equipment, No.
As an option, Yes.

Al G

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote>
>
>> That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be
>> done to the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't
>> seem like a lot it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA
>
> 130+ pounds? No way!

1300 pounds of useful load. what LSA's are you flying?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote

> 1300 pounds of useful load. what LSA's are you flying?

Ahh. 10% of _ _USEFUL LOAD_ _ .

My reading comprehension is way down today, I guess. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote
>
>> 1300 pounds of useful load. what LSA's are you flying?
>
> Ahh. 10% of _ _USEFUL LOAD_ _ .
>
> My reading comprehension is way down today, I guess. <g>

Been there done that.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be
> done to the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't
> seem like a lot it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA and it is
> weight that is much further back than the fuel tanks so it will count
> for more in virtually any LSA installation.

Well somehow the Flight Design CT manages to include a BRS as standard
equipment yet still weigh in at only 649 lbs yet still provide an airframe
capable of a 1320 lbs gross weight. (Properly equipped for day VFR looks to
cost ~$105k. Adding navcom radios also adds weight above their 649 lbs.
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ )

The CT is the kind of competition Cessna has to go up against. That's why
Cessna may not have any choice but to include a parachute. But I'm still
counting on their bean-counters (possibly with assistance from their un-
imaginative engineering and manufacturing side) to nix the idea.

> Don't forget to add to the price that it will have to repacked every 6
> years. While I don't know what they charge I'd bet it ain't cheap.

Repacking cost is not an "unknown" or particularly hard to find information
- it is listed on BRS Parachutes web site right here (under "BRS Products"
menu item "BRS Repack Center"):
http://www.brsparachutes.com/Default.aspx?TabId=25

About US$1500 for the LSA models. Amortized over 6 years, ~$21/month.
Hardly a show-stopping cost at ~6 large Starbucks Lattes/month (assuming a
venti Latte costs $3.50.) ;-)

> Plus I never really liked the idea of having an explosive device right
> behind my head. And yes, I not particularly thrilled about having one
> in front of me aimed at my chest in my car either, but a lot more of
> those have been built and I figure most of the bugs have been worked
> out.

Can't help you there. How many people have died from exploding BRS rockets
so far?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be
>> done to the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't
>> seem like a lot it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA and it
>> is weight that is much further back than the fuel tanks so it will
>> count for more in virtually any LSA installation.
>
> Well somehow the Flight Design CT manages to include a BRS as standard
> equipment yet still weigh in at only 649 lbs yet still provide an
> airframe capable of a 1320 lbs gross weight. (Properly equipped for
> day VFR looks to cost ~$105k. Adding navcom radios also adds weight
> above their 649 lbs. http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ )
>
> The CT is the kind of competition Cessna has to go up against. That's
> why Cessna may not have any choice but to include a parachute. But
> I'm still counting on their bean-counters (possibly with assistance
> from their un- imaginative engineering and manufacturing side) to nix
> the idea.
>


Flight Design has done a fantastic job with the CT. How they got the weight
to that level amazes me. If Cessna were smart they'd just buy Flight Design
out and make the CT their LSA entry in the market. It's high wing and they
could say CT stands for Cessna Traveler or some other word that starts with
T.

I thought about a BRS in the Zenith I'm building. It was going to take up
virtually all of my cargo space plus I just didn't see the need for it.







>> Don't forget to add to the price that it will have to repacked every
>> 6 years. While I don't know what they charge I'd bet it ain't cheap.
>
> Repacking cost is not an "unknown" or particularly hard to find
> information - it is listed on BRS Parachutes web site right here
> (under "BRS Products" menu item "BRS Repack Center"):
> http://www.brsparachutes.com/Default.aspx?TabId=25
>
> About US$1500 for the LSA models. Amortized over 6 years, ~$21/month.
> Hardly a show-stopping cost at ~6 large Starbucks Lattes/month
> (assuming a venti Latte costs $3.50.) ;-)
>

I never said it was an unknown I just said I didn't know it. I'm sure that
$1500 is what they charge when you ship it to them. A&P will add some more
to that to take it out and put it back. It is cheaper than I expected
though.



>> Plus I never really liked the idea of having an explosive device
>> right behind my head. And yes, I not particularly thrilled about
>> having one in front of me aimed at my chest in my car either, but a
>> lot more of those have been built and I figure most of the bugs have
>> been worked out.
>
> Can't help you there. How many people have died from exploding BRS
> rockets so far?

Not that I know of but hasn't they started warning rescue folks that they
might blow during the rescue process?

[Peter Dohm]

> Plus I never really liked the idea of having an explosive device right
> behind my head. And yes, I not particularly thrilled about having one in
> front of me aimed at my chest in my car either, but a lot more of those
have
> been built and I figure most of the bugs have been worked out.
>
>
I never liked either idea, and still don't!

Peter
( Sparing y'all the rant)

[anon]

"Skyman1957" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Thanks John. But what I'm looking for is your gut feeling, not
> evidence of. The theory is that asked a straight forward question
> the majority or average response of a large number of people is allot
> more reliable than individual experts. From the book "The Wisdom of
> Crowds" if your interested.

Like the majority that once believed the Earth was flat and that Poseiden
ruled the seas?

Cessna will not install a BRS on any of their aircraft. Surprisingly, it
increases liabity issues instead of diminishing them.

[Maxwell]

"anon" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Skyman1957" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Thanks John. But what I'm looking for is your gut feeling, not
>> evidence of. The theory is that asked a straight forward question
>> the majority or average response of a large number of people is allot
>> more reliable than individual experts. From the book "The Wisdom of
>> Crowds" if your interested.
>
> Like the majority that once believed the Earth was flat and that Poseiden
> ruled the seas?
>
> Cessna will not install a BRS on any of their aircraft. Surprisingly, it
> increases liabity issues instead of diminishing them.
>

I would have to agree with that too.

Although a BRS can be a life saver, it is also something that can fail or be
misused. I think still lessons to be learned about their use and
installation before they will be considered an undisputable advantage, and a
smart aircraft producer would be well advised to keep it optional.

[Highflyer]

"anon" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Skyman1957" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Thanks John. But what I'm looking for is your gut feeling, not
>> evidence of. The theory is that asked a straight forward question
>> the majority or average response of a large number of people is allot
>> more reliable than individual experts. From the book "The Wisdom of
>> Crowds" if your interested.
>
> Like the majority that once believed the Earth was flat and that Poseiden
> ruled the seas?
>
> Cessna will not install a BRS on any of their aircraft. Surprisingly, it
> increases liabity issues instead of diminishing them.
>

However, the Cirrus is actually outselling Cessna and the wogs say it is
because of the chute aboard. I suspect Cessna is going to start seriously
looking at putting parachutes on all of their single engine airplanes except
perhaps the Caravan! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The rec.aviation flyin at Pinckneyville is coming up soon. May 18, 19,
and 20. See the faq and photos at http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html
Send Mary an email if you are coming at to make sure she
lays in enough food for you. She is already cooking and shopping.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message ...
> However, the Cirrus is actually outselling Cessna and the wogs say it is
> because of the chute aboard.

I suspect that is has more to do with the fact that the Cirrus is fast, and
new, and sorta sexy without being complicated to fly.

> I suspect Cessna is going to start seriously looking at putting parachutes on
> all of their single engine airplanes

You can already put a BRS on a 152 or 172 for a lot less money than it
would cost you to buy a new Cirrus, and Cessna BRS STCs ain't exactly flying
off of the shelves.