When I said “you” I meant it generically i.e. whoever is selling the product.
It’s a bit like if I sell a bit of electronics and there is an externally visible fuse, for “fire protection”. Well, obviously that is what a fuse is for ultimately (fire protection). But it does suggest that the product is somehow more likely (than the competition) to catch fire! So it is a little job for Marketing as to how best to pitch that. I am sure this point is not lost on the non-BRS manufacturers. If a chute was a total win-win everybody would be fitting one.
The topic is always a hornet’s nest on forums. When, a while ago, somebody posted a photo of the partially deployed chute case, one owner wanted the post removed.
Restarting it the way it was stopped, I agree.
Restarting it vamped up with a G1000 and a 250 hp Diesel? Let someone streamline the design to squeeze another 10-15 kts out of it? Different story. At this stage, there is no fully capable diesel powered traveller available on the market. The M10J only qualifies partly as it is a 2-3 seater. But a full 4 seater with 1000 NM range running on a Diesel? Doesn’t exist until Cessna releases the 182 Diesel.
BTW, didn’t Cessna actually stop the conventional C182 in favour of the Diesel one? Which could explain why none were sold this year.
Would it challenge the market leaders? No. Would it sell enough to earn its keep? Probably. The TB is a good design which appeals to a certain market segment who will want to fly a conventional retracable airplane with good payload and range.
What is more backward than a wooden plane? Yet Robin sell their keep, which is all they want to do.
“Very much so – the PC12 is a fine example of being able to absorb a massive labour cost. But the market accepts that.”
Why does the market accept that?
“Very much so – the PC12 is a fine example of being able to absorb a massive labour cost. But the market accepts that.”
Why does the market accept that?
Because the perception is that
a) The quality will remain long after the price is forgotten
b) The aircraft is pitched as an alternative to a Beech 250 which is great but has two PT6 engines and therefore higher cost base
If a chute was a total win-win everybody would be fitting one.
…. The topic is always a hornet’s nest on forums. When, a while ago, somebody posted a photo of the partially deployed chute case, one owner wanted the post removed.
They don’t fit one, because the existing designs of Mooney, Beech, Piper don’t allow it and because very large structural changes would have to be made. There’s no way of putting a BRS into a Mooney or Beech. It’s possible in the Cessna though (172, 182, Kit for 206 out soon) – but of course it takes away some payload.
The story of the "partially deployed chute is well known. It was a mistake done when servicing/replacing the system. But anyway: We all know that there’s no system in the world (other than stupid comments in forums :-)) is 100 % reliable.
Let me rephrase. Why isn’t a US-home-of-GA legacy firm able to build to the same exacting quality standards with a lower cost?
Vans build their quick build kits, “51% finished”, in the Philippines. Allegedly he has stated there is no way to build these kits in the US and be able to sell them and make a living out of it at the same time.
Vans build their quick build kits, “51% finished”, in the Philippines
Which parts are built out there? Is it this
They don’t fit one, because the existing designs of Mooney, Beech, Piper don’t allow it and because very large structural changes would have to be made.
That is one major problem with BRS installations, they basically don’t work on low wing retracables as they do need the gear for dampening. I’ve once seen a concept drawn up by one of the makers of these for low wing retracables. Works in a similar line of thought as the Russian space capsules with a proximity fuse and an airbag opening up below the aircraft to dampen the fall. Payload penalty however would be considerable.
I know of one flying club here who bought a sport cruiser with one installed. The result was, that the airplane was unusable in daily life, as it lost 38 kgs of it’s 150 kg payload. They sold it and bought an Aquilla now, after considering buying a newer Sport Cruiser who does not have the shute anymore either as standard equipment.
Personally I think the shute is a great addition to any airframe as long as it is feasible without too many drawbacks. If not, I prefer airframes with proven crash-resistant cabin designs. The sturdier the airframe and cabin in particular, the better are chances with a forced landing. For that reason for example I was always very comfortable in Russian airframes such as the TU154 and AN2. How many people owe their lifes to the fact that these cabins are built like proverbial tanks has never been investigated but I bet there are many.
Peter, this is the RV Quick Build Kit that is manufactured in the Philippines. They used to do it both there and in the Czech Republic but now only in the Philippines. Price for what’s shown is about $34K Link
High efficiency aircraft structures of all kinds require a lot of semi-skilled labor, which drives the cost in proportion to the hourly cost of semi-skilled labor. RV structures use conventional rivets (not pulled rivets) which are generally lighter and better, but require more labor.
