Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?


Richard Hole <rickhole@...>
 

Interesting... The BRS came along long after the present Q design so
you will be making design changes. I would suggest we not debate
the issue of chutes but be willing to explore the possibilities.

The attachment will be an issue. When the chute deploys there will
be a large impact load on the attachment. They will need to be very
sturdy and spread the load far enough so that the straps do not just
pull free.

The BRS guys may be your best resource. You should be able to
compensate for the balance by moving the battery sufficiently
forward.

I would suggest you spend some time with a flying Q and a mockup of
the BRS install pack to get some ideas how you could mount it, if it
will fit at all.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "bjaphd" <bjaphd@...> wrote:

Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen mention of
it in my few months of monitoring the Q and Dfly lists, and I
didn't
find anything specific to the Q or Dfly in a google search. I did
find some information about BRS in some other canard designs, but
not a Q or Dfly.

I know there are some strong opinions for and against the BRS in
general, which have been well hashed out with respect to other
aircraft. I am not interested in going over that debate once
again,
I have simply made the personal choice that I would like my non-
pilot passengers to have an option if I should happen to stroke
out
in the midst of a flight one day.

Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
balance issues would be the primary difficulty?

Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.

Brian

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.