A thought on BRS

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

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0700, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

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

Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max. total weight is
the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some cases the turbo has one
even lower. The discus 1 for example has a MTOW of 525 kg without the engine,
but with the turbo it reduced to 450 kg.

Roelant van der Bos




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.

Thanks for the explanation.

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

Roelant van der Bos wrote:

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.

Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max.
total weight is the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some
cases the turbo has one even lower. The discus 1 for example has a
MTOW of 525 kg without the engine, but with the turbo it reduced to
450 kg.

An increased "non-lifting parts" limit would not necessarily increase
the total allowed weight, which depends on several factors (landing gear
strength and tow hook mounting come to mind as possibilities).

I don't know why the Discus 1 turbo has such a lower MTOW, but I'd guess
the major effect is you would fly it with a lot less water ballast -
about 100 liters less! I don't think this reduction has anything to do
with the "non-lifting parts" limit, but might be related to required
climb rates or other regulation.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

The reason is quite simple. Even if it doesn't seen logical, water in the wings
increase the stresses in the spar of the wing. This because the water is
situated at the root of the wing. The effect is smaller that an increase in the
non lifting parts. The original wing of the discus was desinged to be a pure
glider. To make the turbo they had to reduce the ammount of water in the wing
by so much that the stresses in the wing would not exceed those of the pure
glider. Therefore they reduced the ammount of water you are allowed to carry by
reducing the MTOW. If you remove the turbo from the glider the MTOW goes back
to 525 kg., indicating that the wing for a Discus T is the same as the pure
glider. New glider are desinged from the start to carry turbo's because
everybody want's them in their new expensive glider. Therefore the wings of the
pure glider may be (do not read : are !) stronger then necessary. MTOW is
determined by the some factors as stall speed and landing gear forces. For
example the new DG 808B ompetition required a new landing gear to be allowed to
carry the new 600 kg MTOW. see
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808-...ml#competition for more
info on that aspect. Also you can read there that they had to move the ballast
bags further out in the wing, to reduce the stresses on the wing.

Roelant

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Roelant van der Bos wrote:

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.

Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max.
total weight is the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some
cases the turbo has one even lower. The discus 1 for example has a
MTOW of 525 kg without the engine, but with the turbo it reduced to
450 kg.

An increased "non-lifting parts" limit would not necessarily increase
the total allowed weight, which depends on several factors (landing gear
strength and tow hook mounting come to mind as possibilities).

I don't know why the Discus 1 turbo has such a lower MTOW, but I'd guess
the major effect is you would fly it with a lot less water ballast -
about 100 liters less! I don't think this reduction has anything to do
with the "non-lifting parts" limit, but might be related to required
climb rates or other regulation.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA