BRS chute for 172

flyer

flyer

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
309
Location
Kansas City MO
Display Name
Display name:
flyer
Anyone have one of these installed on a 172? Looks like I might be installing one of these on a customers 172 soon, and Ive also been considering one for my 172 as well. The installation looks straight forward with attachments to the forward wing bolts. Thoughts?
 
Wouldnt that push an already anemic useful load down to two people and a pint and a half of fuel?
 
Kills cargo compartment, mind the ADs.
I'm also not a fan of riding with the rocket in the cabin
 
I've always figured that when I'm landing out in a powerless 172, I'm going go slowly that my survival chances are pretty good.

It definitely isn't engineered for any "vertical" G.....Now if we put in the 24 G seats and keep the space under them empty, maybe the tubular bar cage....maybe I can depart with one up and 35 gallons of fuel.....
 
Skylane81E said:
Kills cargo compartment, mind the ADs.
I'm also not a fan of riding with the rocket in the cabin
Click to expand...

Valid point. I will see how the first one goes in and how much cargo space it takes up. The ones ive seen it didnt seem to take up much space.

I think the peace of mind factor would still out weigh the disadvantages. There have been times ive been in some heavy turbulence and it would have been nice to know it was available just in case.
 
bbchien said:
I've always figured that when I'm landing out in a powerless 172, I'm going go slowly that my survival chances are pretty good.

It definitely isn't engineered for any "vertical" G.....Now if we put in the 24 G seats and keep the space under them empty, maybe the tubular bar cage....maybe I can depart with one up and 35 gallons of fuel.....
Click to expand...

A good point, cirrus put a lot of work into the plane beyond just strapping a chute to it. From the gear to the seats, it all works together...
 
What Bruce said, plus it becomes a 2 seat airplane. Better off just buying a 150 with 40* flaps and crash that much slower, or man up and buy a twin.
 
flyer said:
Valid point. I will see how the first one goes in and how much cargo space it takes up. The ones ive seen it didnt seem to take up much space.

I think the peace of mind factor would still out weigh the disadvantages. There have been times ive been in some heavy turbulence and it would have been nice to know it was available just in case.
Click to expand...

Just slow to Va and slog through it, or land and wait it out. If the turbulence is so bad that you're considering pulling the chute handle, you shouldn't be there in the first place, and you almost certainly don't want to be hanging under a parachute in it!
 
bbchien said:
I've always figured that when I'm landing out in a powerless 172, I'm going go slowly that my survival chances are pretty good.

It definitely isn't engineered for any "vertical" G.....Now if we put in the 24 G seats and keep the space under them empty, maybe the tubular bar cage....maybe I can depart with one up and 35 gallons of fuel.....
Click to expand...

I'd really like to see one in a lancair.. 172 not so much.
 
My homebuilt will have one, at least untill the 40 hours is up.
But I see no reason to put one in a 172.
 
Our flying club bought a 172sp that came with a brs. They had it removed right away because it killed the useful load. Seems like it makes more sense with lancairs or others with high approach speeds.
 
BRS recertification on Cirrus is every 10 years and costs $10,000. I would never consider putting one on a 172, especially with 172's docile Spin recovery characteristics.

There is a reason Cirrus has a BRS...you don't ever want to get a Cirrus in a spin...
 
andyk1 said:
There is a reason Cirrus has a BRS...you don't ever want to get a Cirrus in a spin...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's an old wives tale. You're right, there's a reason the Cirrus has a BRS. One of the Klapmeir boys was in a mid-air collision, and wanted to be certain that there was a way to get safely down if it happened in a plane he helped produce. We've had a few other threads on this before; do a search.
 
Cirrus SR-XX's did not go through the full certification spin testing. The only guaranteed spin recovery method in the aircraft is to pull the chute.

gprellwitz said:
Sorry, but that's an old wives tale. You're right, there's a reason the Cirrus has a BRS. One of the Klapmeir boys was in a mid-air collision, and wanted to be certain that there was a way to get safely down if it happened in a plane he helped produce. We've had a few other threads on this before; do a search.
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
Cirrus SR-XX's did not go through the full certification spin testing. The only guaranteed spin recovery method in the aircraft is to pull the chute.
Click to expand...
True, they didn't go through the full battery of tests, and they make the assumption that, like twins (which don't go through the tests either), there are spin regimens that may be unrecoverable. That being said, they went through more than 60 spin entries, and the aircraft recovered within a single turn in all cases.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/582392.aspx said:
Spin Behavior
i. Test Matrix.
A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations. [see original for chart]
1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against the spin direction.
ii. Results.
The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above referenced reports.
iii. Comments.
No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs. These spins enabled Cirrus to gain additional understanding of both the stall departure characteristics of the airplane and the necessary spin recovery techniques.
Click to expand...
 
Is that just the SR20 though? The SR22 would be different I imagine and there are different variants of such that would change things even further yet.
 
Seems a 172 with a 9:1 glide ratio would not be the most in need of a brs chute, but if it gives peace of mind and maybe some insurance savings, I say go with it. If you're that worried about mid airs it would make more sense to commit to keeping your eyes outside of the plane.

I honestly don't know anyone who considers their 172 any more than a two seater anyway. How much useful load is lost when installing one?
 
Two seat Skyhawk?

Interesting point of view... Funny thing, I have rode in and I have flown Hawks with 4 adult men inside and always thought it is a fine load hauler... I guess I am too easily pleased...

I will pass on the BRS, though...
 
I was quoting a person employed by Cirrus with first hand knowledge of Cirrus spin characteristics who spoke to me directly...(let me just say he knows the limitations of the aircraft like few others.)

That was sufficient knowledge for me. Add the tremendous cost of ballistic chute recertification and, well...to each his own.


I don't want to get into a message board debate about Cirrus and their ballistic chute. This will be my last post on the subject. I don't want to disparage Cirrus.
 
Last edited:
There is only a couple of valid reasons for pulling the chute in my mind and many pilots rely entirely too much on the chute, it’s a false sense of security that gets them into more trouble than it’s worth in many cases.

Don't get me wrong, it is a lifesaver in the hands of a responsible pilot especially in the event of a midair collision or some sort of structural failure but the insurance rates will tell you that there is a bigger issue.
 
Willyflys said:
There is only a couple of valid reasons for pulling the chute in my mind and many pilots rely entirely too much on the chute, it’s a false sense of security that gets them into more trouble than it’s worth in many cases.

Don't get me wrong, it is a lifesaver in the hands of a responsible pilot especially in the event of a midair collision or some sort of structural failure but the insurance rates will tell you that there is a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

IMO, if the plane is equipped with a BRS, then fine. I wouldn't call it a false sense of security. I like to think of it, as a realistic last chance option to make the difference between living, death, or a vegetative state.

I didn't use to think about living and vanishing within seconds as much as I do now. I just happened to be wearing a full face helmet, when my motorcycle and I collided with a deer at 65 mph. I hit head first on the highway. Imagine what no helmet would have looked like. A half helmet wouldn't have worked either. I consider the BRS to be the full face helmet. It's there, when all other options have run out. Therefor, I could care less about what a pilot might or might not do, just because the BRS is there.
It's just another one of those devices, that you'll be extremely happy to have, when **** hits the fan...

L.Adamson
 
LandSickness said:
I honestly don't know anyone who considers their 172 any more than a two seater anyway. How much useful load is lost when installing one?
Click to expand...

The 172/180 I rent has a payload of 820 lbs with the 38 gal tanks topped off. The newer 172s are a different story.
 
The number of situations in which I would consider pulling the chute are so vanishingly few that I don't see the point of having it. Engine failure at night and over mountains, that's about all I can think of. And I probably wouldn't pull one around the rocks here because there's often a road you can land. Yeah you'll want one after a mid air collision, but those are rare. So are catastrophic control malfunctions. Seems like a lot of money to spend on not so much potential utility.
 
nddons said:
Wouldnt that push an already anemic useful load down to two people and a pint and a half of fuel?
Click to expand...

Installation weight is said to be 79 pounds; or ~13 gallons of fuel equivalent.

Factory FAQ on BRS for Cessna 172/182 with impact forces and descent rate: http://brsaerospace.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx

Older price list: http://www.brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/BRS Retail Price List 09.pdf

With respect to situations where pilots have felt the need to deploy, here is a list of one line summaries of all Cirrus CAPS deployments as of August 2012: http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSHistory.aspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top