Ballistic Recovery System (Parachute)

[johnr9q@yahoo.com]

Has anyone installed one? What do you think of the practicality of one?

[NWade]

John -

A BRS is a lot of weight and takes up a fair amount of space. It features pyrotechnics (explosives that you carry around with you in the plane), and big straps that have to connect to structural members that can carry the load of the airplane during the descent PLUS all the shock loads of the 'chute opening. Its a somewhat-complicated and expensive solution that requires engineering and testing. And, as we've seen from some Cirrus incidents, firing the chute does not guarantee safety. If the plane is on fire or the wind pushes you into power-lines or a mountainside you can be just as hosed as if you didn't pull the 'chute (perhaps more-so).

The Sonex is designed to be small, lightweight, and simple (i.e. not complex). It wasn't engineered with a BRS in-mind. Adding one would detract from your useful load and possibly cause CG problems.

A simpler aircraft is a more-reliable aircraft - the less you have, the less can go wrong and the easier it is to keep up with maintenance. My sailplane, for example, features no motor and no fuel to catch on fire. Annuals cost me less than $500 and "maintenance" involves charging batteries, greasing a few parts, inflating the tires, and washing the aircraft. Yet I can use it like most any VFR pilot uses their airplane: On nice weekends I can go out and fly 100 to 300 miles and have some fun. No complications, no IFR certification or testing of gear, etc.

You could save a whole lot of money and hassle by skipping the BRS and instead spending a small portion of that money on glider lessons (which will teach you how to fly "dead stick" with confidence and precision). Jeremy and John have also mentioned this in seminars and some of the Sonex videos online.

Invest the balance of your time and money into good maintenance on the Sonex and - most importantly - regular flying to keep your skills sharp! Regular flying also helps keep engine corrosion at bay and keeps grease/oil spread around on control hinges and other critical parts; so its a win-win for the aircraft and for the pilot!

--Noel
PPL SEL, CPL Glider
Sonex #1339 - Wings & Empennage done, about to start Fuselage
TD, Center-Stick, Acro Ailerons, Aerovee Turbo

[kmacht]

Forget the BRS. Put in an ejection seat.

http://rt.com/news/226095-russia-unique-ejector-seat/

Keith
#554

[marsolgp]

I believe the new SubSonex has one installed.....

[NWade]

Not to be pedantic; but I need to point out that the SubSonex is a completely different design! Different structure, different engineering, different operating envelope, different powerplant (obviously), etc. Its an apples-to-oranges comparison.

--Noel

[Sonex1517]

I'd echo what Noel said. A BRS is not a good fit for a Sonex.

Recent incidents also show us piloting skills are a more effective safety net than a BRS. Many incidents begin at altitudes and airspeeds where it is my personal opinion the BRS would not modify the outcome.

[rizzz]

I remember someone on the old yahoo groups having either looked at installing one or had actually done so.
Anyway, his findings were that the only way he could make it work was with the chute coming out of the bottom of the aircraft, thus landing it upside down (still better than dying right?). The problem with trying to get it to come out of the top was that the chute needs to be attached to the main spars and engine mount and he could find no way to arrange the ropes so they wouldn't risk cutting off his head or other body parts when deployed.

[Waiex 49]

I think a parachute for the pilot would be an easier solution than a BRS for the plane.
The Sonex and Waiex were not designed with the BRS in mind, I don't see how it could be made to work.

When my AeroVee packed it in I found the Waiex to be a pretty good glider.
Focus on flying the plane and you will be ok.

Don Bowen
N49YX

[SonexN76ET]

If Sonex were to offer a BRS air frame parachute someday, I would buy it. The potential events I could envision using it would include: mid air collisions, air frame failures, control system jams or failures, partial or complete pilot incapacitation, engine failure over inhospitable terrain, a stall or spin that was unreoverable, inadvertent encounter with icing, or if an engine mount were to break. Most of these things have never happened to Sonex aircraft, but they have happened to other aircraft. In fact, one of the Cirrus production prototypes had an aileron jam in flight. It did not have the BRS installed yet and the Air Guard F16 pilot who was their test pilot perished after multiple landing attempts. Finally, more than for myself, I would buy a BRS as an additional safety net for my passengers.

I respect each of your opinions on this issue. I am just saying if it was offered, I would buy a BRS for my Sonex.

Thanks,

Jake

[fastj22]

I wish the Sonex airframe could support a BRS but don't think it can. So, when I stress my aircraft where a potential inflight failure is more likely, I wear a parachute and do those maneuvers high enough for me to get out. All other times, I have faith my airframe will not fail. That leaves engine failures and mid-air collisions. I have ADS-B to help on the collisions, and in the event of an engine failure, I will fly the airframe as slow and as far into the crash as I can.