Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Michael Brusilow
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center>section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.>>________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Larry Ragan
Before I decided on the Piet I attended a forum at Oshkosh on theHummelbird. Moray Hummel quoted..." Why would you want to add extra weightand complexity trying to anchor a chute to the airframe? If it ain't safedon't get in it!"The Piets and the GN-1 both have an excellent structural record no in flightairframe failures attributed to the design. Now if we can only get thepilots to be that good.......John Mc-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Ted Brousseau
Subject: Pietenpol-List: BRS>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center>section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel.>>Yes there was. A fellow in New Hampshire built a Piet a while back with aBRS. I saw it at Rhinebeck. I believe it was at the Piet fly-in which washeld at Cole Palens' that year. I don't recall the builder's name, but hehad a BRS for sure. Where the chute was located, I don't remember either.Sorry, not much help.I do recall that Ed Snyder & I ( we both flew our Piets in ) didn't think itwas such a good idea.A few years back I researched all the Piet accidents in the FAA files. Therewas only one structural failure & that was in a Piet whose lift strutscollapsed under negative gs. The aircraft did not have jury struts.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel. ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
>Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center >section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel. >Larry- I put a 17 gallon nose tank in my Piet and used theentire center section for luggage. You could put whatever youwant in the center section really. You'd have to see if theymake an affordable chute for a potentially 1100 lb. gross weightvs. the ultralight versions. My guess is that it would be BIG $$$.If you build it right, you'd never need to think of using a BRSanywho. You could almost land one of these on a football field.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry)
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Michael D Cuy wrote:> >Has anyone used a BRS on a Piet? My first thought is to use the center > >section of the wing, if there's room, and a header tank for fuel. > > > Larry- I put a 17 gallon nose tank in my Piet and used the> entire center section for luggage. You could put whatever you> want in the center section really. You'd have to see if they> make an affordable chute for a potentially 1100 lb. gross weight> vs. the ultralight versions. My guess is that it would be BIG $$$.> If you build it right, you'd never need to think of using a BRS> anywho. You could almost land one of these on a football field.> > Mike C. > Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how willbuilding it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozingKing Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flyingaround the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure? or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from50' up)? Not convinced? Try http://users.aol.com/BRSchute/BRS.HTML for moredetails. A 1050 (coresponds to gross weight of plane) softpack looks likeit might fit in the center section of the wing and is available for $2895and thier 1200 Vertical Launch System is available for $3295. Plus, theyhave 10% off until Jan 15.Hope this helps. I already have a spot picked out for my installation eventhough I'll need the 1500 version.Ken________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Larry Ragan
-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: ESchlanser(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: BRS>Ken B. wrote:>>>Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how will>>building it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozing>>King Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flying>>around the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure?>>or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from>>50' up)?>>Ken- You are exactly right with the above info. It would be nice to>have if you aren't knocked unconcious and can't activate the BRS or>if you aren't on fire and don't want to ride out the descent of a chute.>I hear that the Cirrus or something is coming from the factory with>a BRS as standard equip.>>Mike C.>________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: mboynton(at)excite.com
Ken B. wrote:>Unless you plan on using structural steel I-beams for spars, how will>building it right help you land a Piet in a football field after a dozing>King Air pilot clips 12' off your right wing? What if your're flying>around the mountains or forest or crowded city and have an engine failure? >or, an unintentional spin at 200' (yup, these things will help you from>50' up)? Ken- You are exactly right with the above info. It would be nice to have if you aren't knocked unconcious and can't activate the BRS orif you aren't on fire and don't want to ride out the descent of a chute.I hear that the Cirrus or something is coming from the factory witha BRS as standard equip.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
> I'm a CFII lurker from the Tailwind group, but I've got to step in here.You have revealed a significant reason for the 'chutes. As pilots, we are notalways as good as we should be. Sometimes as pilots our mistakes ormisperceptions will result in consequences out of proportion to the originalsimple, honest miscalculation. In that case, the ace in the hole might be a'chute. The BRS 'chute warrented front page on the Wall Street Journal (or wasit the NY Times) with the story that Cirrus Designs had attached one to theirnewly certificated SR20. This design feature is the only comprehensible answerto many non-pilots to the question, "What happens when the engine quits?". Itwas a surprise to the reporter that some pilots objected to the 'chutes. Theirarguments that the extra weight will detract from payoad and performance, thatunintended ground damage could result, and the associated expense of atotalled airframe all were not justifiable arguments to the 200 people whohave already ordered these airplanes. There are many people who want twoengines, some want seat belts, and some now want 'chutes. It's a reduction inrisk that many have chosen to take for the sake of their families and friends.It's also a really new solution to the safety of GA airframes. If you want toride a motorcycle without a helmet or fly without a 'chute, it's still a freecountry. Now if you talk about mandating these 'chutes on GA planes, you mayhave a basis for argument. But, to deny their usefulness is rigidity to changeand progress and you expose yourself to logical arguments in their favor.Someone, somewhere, sometime will run out of gas above an overcast without aninstrument rating or even gyro instruments and need this device. Othersituations come to mind, but I need to get out of here. Hope this helps.Respectfully submitted, Eric Schlanser________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
KING AIR PILOTS DON'T DOZE..........THEY SNOOZE!-----Original Message-----