BRS for emergencies

The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim

One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

If you size the BRS system to the ballasted gross weight, you end up
needing a rather large system that costs a lot and takes up a lot of
internal volume.

On the other hand, if you size the BRS to the dry gross weight you
have a system that is overmatched under many flight regimes, including
many in which BRS capability is most desirable - such as climbing away
from a start at a crowded contest site.

You could placard the system into compliance with a sticker that says
"Dump ballast before deploying BRS" or "Do not deploy BRS while
ballasted." But that doesn't address an important issue: most ballast
dump systems can't empty the water out in less than about a minute,
and some take as much as three or five minutes.

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)


Shawn

On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim


Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well past redline. It
reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated with the
pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped into the seat pan.

The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage descended
safely to the ground.

It would be difficult for any recovery system to work well once the
aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.

The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very encouraging
to me.

The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation on this
site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.

George Y

At 17:00 13 September 2007, Shawn wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water
ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed
a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness
so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be
a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected
to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the
water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller
too ;-)


Shawn

BOMBS AWAY!

Paul

shawn wrote:
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)

Might as well remove the tail boom, too. This would reduce the glider to
just the cockpit with the pilot. Having a known weight, shape, and size
to control would make it substantially easier for the rescue system
designer. It would speed the certification process, because only one
shape would need to be tested, instead of configurations with all
surfaces attached, one or both wings missing, tail missing, etc.

It would be a very safe glider, as most pilots would never get in it!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

On Sep 13, 1:10 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

uh, isnt this Rec.Misinformation.Aviation.Soaring ??? or am I lost?

At 17:36 13 September 2007, Bikensoar wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over
redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out
of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology.
Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave
like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim


Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project.
The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well
past redline. It
reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated
with the
pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped into
the seat pan.

The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage
descended
safely to the ground.

It would be difficult for any recovery system to work
well once the
aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.

The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very
encouraging
to me.

The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is
the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes.
There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation
on this
site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.

George Y

George, I just attended the ESA (Experimental Sailplane
Association, formerly SHA) western workshop in Tehachapi
where Greg Cole (Sparrowhawk designer/Windward Perf
owner for the uninformed) covered the 'Owl Project
incedent' in his presentation, and Jim is basically
correct. BTW, this is the incident I was referring
to in my earlier post about a flutter breakup and how
smart it was for the pilot to also have a personal
chute cause' it saves his a$$ when the BRS ejected
him, but did not want to mention names at that point,
out of respect. But since it is out for open discussion,
I will add this. The wings fluttered off at 170kts
(the calculated flutter speed BTW) during a botched
'extreme envelope test' involving manually performed
aerobatic maneuvers to gather data for an autopilot
system destined for it's UAV application. When the
BRS was deployed, by the pilot, he was ejected through
the airframe under the extreme G's (I forgot the exact
number they calculated, but it was very high) pulled
during the ensuing deceleration in lawn dart configuration.
Good thing he had his personal chute (and I believe
a helmet too for that matter)...
I am not at all against the BRS (and certainly not
against Windward, I personally love the Sparrowhawk,
which performs quite admirably within it's design parameters),
I just think a BRS should not be considered a 'substitute'
for a personal chute, but rather a nice addition. Most
people need a cushion in the cockpit. Yours can be
made of dirty laundry if you wanted, but I will always
use a chute to fill that role, and think that others
should be encouraged to do the same. I have had this
conversation with several of the pilots at my club,
where incidentally the only fatality there was a fellow
who was not wearing his chute (that day only) when
his HP-14 controls jammed and a spin became unrecoverable.
A BRS would have done the job nicely that time, but
from 5,000 AGL he also had plenty of altitude to jump
ship.
Wear your chutes folks, accidents are not planned events
and you can't guarantee the BRS will operate properly
after an incident/accident that requires you to use
it, but get a BRS if you can as they are indeed great
inventions.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Earlier, George Young wrote:

Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot.

He never said it was deployed by the pilot.

The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped
into the seat pan.

Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.

the wreckage descended safely to the ground.

All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
false.

Thanks, Bob K.