BRS Install photos in Model 3?

[wildirishtime]

Curious what it takes to install in a Model 3? Anyone have photos or details, or should I get this from the BRS manufacturer? Does it launch
out the turtledeck? I read somewhere about someone with one
that fires DOWN? How does that work, I am confused on this....

If mounting info is online anywhere and someone can point me to a link
that would be great! I've browsed the web and cant find any Model3's.
A model 4 photo would be good if that's around I suppose.

I'm just trying to plan ahead and get an idea of how one installs before purchasing.

Thanks,
-Wild

[Av8r3400]

I've posted before about the mounting in my IV-1200. It does in fact fire down.

The leads wrap around under the fabric on the right side of the fuselage to the four corners of the two carry through tubes.

This means, that if fired, the chute will go through the fabric in the belly, the leads will tear the fabric around the right side behind the wing, the turtle deck and skylight will be torn off as the chute inflates above the plane.

Yeah, it's quite a destructive action...

[wildirishtime]

That all sounds fine on an installation from new, but what about a retro install where I don't want to recover or tape under the lines? Do they have any options for installing under the turtledeck and mount from the inside with no major reskinning of the plane?

Thanks,
-Brendan

[SkyPirate]

you can tape over the lines on the outside of the covering,..but you still have to put a hole somewhere to connect the lead lines to the chute,..

Chase

[wildirishtime]

So do ALL Chute installations have the chute cables going to the outside
of the aircraft? I can see how that would provide a better 'flat' landing, but is there no installs that come straight on the turtledeck with all INTERIOR cabling?

[SkyPirate]

the idea is the less restriction for the cables and chute to to deploy ..the better ,..they make soft packs as well as canisters , although I have never seen a soft pack mounted on the exterior of a kitfox,.i suppose a soft pack could be mounted under the turtle deck but then ,.how do you remove the turtle deck to deploy the soft pack in flight?

Chase

[wildirishtime]

I had always assumed they could fire THROUGH the turtledeck, but you know what they say about ASSuming :) I know nothing of these BRS chutes except ones I've seen on trikes. I have visions of buying one that I can move to another Kitfox when I upgrade someday, trying to sort out if that's a reality.

[Mark]

We have installed units facing up through the turtle deck (single piece lexan - not the aluminum frames). The lines run between the skylight and the headrack so the destruction is all above your head. A way to insure the turtle deck breaks away is to scribe the lexan at the attach points and where the rocket will blow through.

I want to do a test fire. I have a fuselage with skylight and turtle deck but a rocket costs $600. Expensive test. If I do get a hold of one, we'll video and post it.

[wildirishtime]

Mark this sounds perfect - completely interior cabling right? Do you have photos of the install and the scoring you're recommending??? Is this a 'standard installation' recommended by Fitfox/BRS or your own solution?

Thanks! Forgive my ignorance - is there only one BRS manufacturer?

[rcsfca]

The ballistic chute arena has become somewhat complicated.

For an EXTENSIVE technical discussion of BRS chutes in a Kitfox IV, the other forum has a very long thread and one of the writers attached the three important BRS drawings for Kitfox Model III's and IV's as PDF's.

The BRS drawing numbers for Model III's and IV's are 3575-A, 3575-B, and 3575-C although the writer gave the PDF's different names than that.
There is also a separate detail drawing for fabricating frame bands that is BRS drawing number 1175. BRS can supply it.

(For Kitfox V's (and later????), the drawings are 3585-A, 3585-B, and 3585-C, also available from BRS.)

The long thread is here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=14890&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=brs

However the big complications are in the manufacturing and distribution end. There are (at least) three players out there but two are somewhat new to the USA scene...

1) BRS (http://www.brsparachutes.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx), which is a trademark of Ballistic Recovery Systems in Minnesota, has sold many ballistic chutes to Kitfoxers over the years but of late has been having a very difficult time delivering the product. My order for a 1350 lb. capacity model for my Model IV went unfilled for 13 weeks so we finally canceled in December (2009). BRS was cooperative in refunding our 100% up-front deposit.

2) Magnum Parachutes (http://magnumparachutes.com/index.htm) in Melbourne, Florida is the US distributor for a Czech ballistic chute that has apparently been around for some time in Europe.

3) Galaxy High Technology is also a Czech-based supplier of ballistic chutes and digs into chute performance in a major way on their website. Their US distributor is Sport Flying Shop (http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Safety/GRS/grs.html) in Los Angeles, which aggressively markets product availability but I haven't talked with them yet.

I don't know anything about the two Czech manufacturers - are they competitors, or is it a re-branding deal???? Maybe someone on the forum can chime in.

At this point, I'm going with no chute and staying away from hostile territory, in other words, it'll be IFR (I Follow Roads) for the near future. At least until the dust settles on the chute picture. It's likely that all the suppliers are suffering from the GA industry implosion and that, of course, directly affects availability and distribution.
One parallel safety device I've installed is a ZAON Portable Collision Avoidance System (PCAS) to help avoid mid-air collisions, which is one event where there is no substitute for a chute.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Rich Cunningham

[wildirishtime]

Rich thanks for the long and informative email. Hopefully you'll let me know when you come up with a new plan - know my wife would be happiest with a BRS (any brand that works) in the aircraft so hoping to hear good news before long on the topic!

I keep hoping there's a way to go out the top, I hate the idea of cables wrapped around the exterior, seems so tacky since I'm talking about a finished airplane.

Thanks!

~WildIrish

[rcsfca]

Your welcome! What keeps the Kitfox community going is dedicated information sharing.

In regards to the location of the cables and the launch direction of the rocket, take a look at the BRS drawings that are referenced in my previous message. One of the drawings portrays the cables as being top mounted along the windshield line, attached to the frame at the front. Check it out!

Rich Cunningham

[wildirishtime]

You're referring to the 3575 PDF's on the 'other forum' link right? unless I'm mistaken, aren't they all showing downward firing? Seems like in a close-to-ground deployment shooting downward is the last think you want....

Am I missing the correct photo you are referring me to?

Thanks!
~Wild

[SkyPirate]

one thing to consider with a rocket deployed parachute ,..almost all kitfox's that have the BRS system has them either pointing down or out the side,..and I'm wondering if this is to reduce the initial shock of deployment of the chute,..I'm thinking a rocket going straight up dragging the chute behind it and then being suddenly at the end of it's rope ...literally,..was there a reason for side or down departure of the rocket and chute system?,..this would inherently make the rocket go into an arc,.. which would swing from the bottom or the side curving to the top,..which would drastically reduce the shock to the harness on the airframe,..

lexan is some tuff stuff,..you can take a hammer to it,..if you watch some of the tests that lexan has been subject to,.. also on myth busters,..like cannons tossing frozen chickens at it ..sometimes the chicken is deflected,..that's 5 to 6 lbs of frozen chicken bouncing off the lexan under force,..probably more force then the BRS rocket will exert on it,..one would be better off to make the turtle deck so it would eject under the pressure of the rocket then trying to poke a hole thru it ..if the rocket did poke thru ..now the chute has to follow thru that same jagged hole the rocket made in the lexan if it indeed did penetrate it..

I'd like to see the results of a thru turtle deck test,..not with just a rocket going thru but the chute as well following it,..expensive test though .

Chase

[rcsfca]

Drawing 3575-B is the most valuable for illustrating the installation of the cables along the top of the frame. However, the different firing orientations of the rocket (as has been discussed in several threads) is subject to discussion and I haven't been able to discern a superior orientation.

However, if the exit is to be through the top, the lexan needs to be "pre-cut" to allow the rocket to exit. SkyPirate was right-on about the resistance ability of lexan - you sure wouldn't want a ballistic rocket bouncing around inside the cabin!

The BRS factory engineers suggested cutting a section of the lexan (can't remember the exact dimensions, maybe it was 12" square) and then gluing it back in with thin bridging strips so the whole piece would would break away easily when contacted by the exiting rocket.

BTW, to keep this thread more intact, I've attached the BRS drawings we've been talking about.

Rich

[wildirishtime]

Thanks for adding those files - great care for all future readers...
I somehow never saw the band install pdf.

Well none of those actually show upward firing - seems like velcro etc could be utilized for a quick release of the turtledeck, about anything that will not catch air in flight and still hold it on would be suitable right?

Someone wrote somwhere that 'firing down is to prevent from getting wrapped up in the event of a folded back wing in flight' but seems to me like straight up would be 1. faster acting in low altitude and 2. if a wing is folded back there's a 100% chance that if that side wing is folded back it WILL hang up the riser line that goes around the side and down underneath. I just don't undersatnd how mounting at the bottom is smart at all.

How far back can we mount one, can we go far enough back that it goes aft of the turtledeck? Or is that just too far for weight and balance?

Here's another question: is it smart to buy used BRS chutes ? Will they sell you risers and hardware only from BRS for the kitfox if I got a used one?

~Wild

[rcsfca]

Good questions about mounting location and direction of launching. The only thing I can directly comment on is the idea of using Velcro to adhere a breakaway lexan panel.

Someone at BRS recommended AGAINST using Velcro because of two reasons: a) It's adherence is too strong for the rocket and b) Velcro does not uniformly release and a non-uniform release could cause the rocket to exit at a poor or outright impossible angle. That's why they recommended the cut-out lexan panel held in place with thin (relatively weak) bridging strips glued to the turtledeck/windshield to hold the panel in place but still break away cleanly when impacted by the rocket.

Rich

[Av8r3400]

...which could potentially blow out in a forward slip.

I still think this is why most of these installs go out the bottom, though a perforated fabric (mine appears to have been "scored" with a pinwheel as suggested earlier). It doesn't show in the photos, but there is an "X" pattern of very fine holes in the fabric, I assume made with a tool that looks like a little pizza cutter, but has pins on the wheel (looking for a picture on the net now).

Found one here. (http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXTZW9&P=FR)

The "out the bottom" deployment is not the prettiest, especially in my case, and fairly destructive to the a/c. But still seems to be the best way to go.

[wildirishtime]

I agree with your comments about the risk of going through the turtledeck, but what about my question of mounting aft of the
turtledeck facing up? Bad weight and balance ?

[desertfox1]

As Mike Berglund was building his Vixen with BRS in baggage compartment,
we were also concerned about the strength of Lexan. He cut a hole in
the turtledeck and I thermoformed a simple airfoil shaped cover from very
thin ABS. We feel the rocket would go through this without deflection.

Phil Laker

Super Sport 78KA

[SkyPirate]

the last BRS I worked with which was a 750 .,, I'm thinking it was 14 lbs,..so weighing that much you want it as close to the CG mark as possible,..

As for using BRS systems,..personally I can't see the use unless your planning on doing some serious aerobatic maneuvers that far exceed the G rating for the plane,..and remembering that listed G load's are not max ratings,..max ratings are ussually 1/2 again the listed G rating,..that's a 9 G ultimate for a sustained 6 G rated aircraft .. gross at 1200 =7200lbs sustained or 10800lb ultimate,.. I don't think the kitfox can go fast enough with any normally asperated engine on it to reach a 9 G ultimate load unless your over loading it to begin with,..just my personal feelings of using a BRS,..
Kitfox's are built way to strong to ever need a BRS,..as long as your not over loading it in the first place,..
but like I said ,..that's my personal feelings concerning the issue

Chase

[SkyPirate]

if you are planning on installing a BRS ,..just for your own satisfaction ,.which is perfectly understandable,..put the plane thru a scenario of a structural failure,.. that would justify using a BRS,..say a wing folds up,.(chances are it won't fold back ..wings inherently want to go forward unless a fuselage to wing connect point ..say the front one failed and let the wing go in a vertical atitude ). so a strut,.or strut point failure,.it might flop once or twice ,..but it will be severed from the aircraft,..since the strongest part of the wing has already failed ..the strut,..6061 T-6 (spar material ) it is strong stuff too ..but your connect points at the fuselage are the weakest,..so asta manyana wing in case of strut failure,..now ..your reaction time ..,..shock to your system is going to put thing's in slow motion ..garauntee it,..unless your use to a daily dose of stress to this magnitude,..
plane now has one wing ,.and it's spiraling towards the abyss,..I say abyss because I got my eye's closed ..want it to be a surprise when I stop suddenly
Seriously now ..back to the point ..spiraling thru the air,..tell me which position the BRS is mounted in is going to work best in this scenario,.. the thing that will matter is that the sling and chords for the chute have the cleanest escape route of the plane,..no jagged surfaces that could damage the chute, chords,..sling,..etc that would be, to have the canister/rocket mounted as close to the exit surface that is chosen for depart zone as possible,..
Now you still have the chance of the remaining wing getting tangled up in the lead line to the chute as the plane is still spiraling until the canopy is opened,..but hopefully forward speed will keep it the tangling towards the tail if it wraps up,..to ensure this ..mounting the chute as far away from the remaining wing as possible would be my first choice.
I say this because in a scenario like the above,..to get as much of the BRS system out of the plane to enable full canopy deployment is the goal for it to be effective,..whether the plane touches down on it's gear..nose ..or back is hit or miss, depending on the structural failure that took place,..
and I say structural failure because that is the only time I would deploy a BRS if I had one installed,..

sorry didn't mean to make a book of it,or scare anyone..just trying to point out that once Murphy has entered the picture,..you've got to have already out thinked him ,..way before he knocks on the door.
hence the reason why some justify using a BRS,..just don't let it be a part of the problem ..that's all

Chase