Ballistic Recovery System

ahend

Newbie
Doing a quick calculation, at 540 RPM, you have a blade passing by every 56ms. Not a lot of time to allow the harness leader to pass through the rotor disc without being grabbed by a blade. If the slip knot attachment were to tighten suddenly with a tug from the offending blade, the system could end up in a tangled mess.

I suppose the system weight would also need to be considered. The Mosquitos are right there in the weight limit for FAR103
 

NJpilot

Member
I'm all for ballistic chutes for rotorcraft and welcome a design specifically for them. Having said that I'm less concerned about a bridal that works with an intact rotor. I don't see the need when the rotor is intact. I see it only being used after a catastrophe failure like a rotor strike or other structural failure in with case the rotor has most likely departed and the ship is tumbling. I think I'd feel better if the system was attached to the frame instead of the rotor head.
 

ahend

Newbie
I'm all for ballistic chutes for rotorcraft and welcome a design specifically for them. Having said that I'm less concerned about a bridal that works with an intact rotor. I don't see the need when the rotor is intact. I see it only being used after a catastrophe failure like a rotor strike or other structural failure in with case the rotor has most likely departed and the ship is tumbling. I think I'd feel better if the system was attached to the frame instead of the rotor head.

I was thinking along similar lines. You would of course choose to autorotate in most emergency situations. A major failure in the rotor head could render the recovery system unusable, but would one even survive to active the system if you lost a main blade under power?

I see this useful with a complete tail rotor failure, control linkage issue, or power loss over a wooded area.

In thinking about frame point attachments, popping out the end of the boom is about all you could do. That would be a mess coming down and you would have the engine poised to crush you if the touchdown was too abrupt.
 
Last edited:

pancho

Member
I have witnessed a bunt/ power pushover. A chute would have worked fine provided it was deployed in time. However at ANY other time a chute would be equally fatal. I believe that an accidental chute deployment poses a greater danger than anything else is likely to pose.
 

NJpilot

Member
I believe that an accidental chute deployment poses a greater danger than anything else is likely to pose.
I have a Challenger with a top of wing mounted BRS. Since it's a pusher the BRS sits in front of the engine and prop. A deployment while the prop is powered could be a big problem.

I don't think twice about an accidental deployment. The chute is deployed by a rocket motor that needs to be ignited by a spring loaded igniter. It is not cocked so it can just go off. I liken it to a box of matches accidentally igniting. It's just not going to happen.
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Airframe systems make sense for a 4-seat Cirrus because it is impractical to carry 4 chutes and get everybody out the door in good order. For single seaters, especially open cockpit, the case for an airframe system is much less persuasive.

The airframe is likely to be toast anyway by the time you have a catastrophic failure or collision that makes the ship uncontrollable, deploy the chute, and hit the ground. You can save a bundle simply by buying a personal emergency chute for yourself, wear it when you fly, jump when/if it suddenly all goes pear shaped, open when you are clear, and simply throw away the aircraft. I have a Strong Paracushion that I like. They don't weigh much and are steerable.
 
Top