Ryan, You need to listen to people on this group if you want to get a realistic picture of what to expect when you fly your plane. No one is blowing smoke here. Your comparison is not valid. The

Sorry Jay, but that was not what I saw as an apples to apples comparison and here is why. I’m happy to be wrong here, but this is where I was coming from. Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph).

Don't know where you getting your numbers from, but they are wrong. See my prior post, but here is a repeat of the landing speeds from that post: Cessna 152 Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43

I think in the unlikely circumstance that you would need a BRS, It would make more sense just to routinely wear a parachute as your seat back and convert your canopy hinge to disconnect with release

Here are the relevant data: Cessna 152 Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43 Knots Wing Area 160 sq. ft. Gross weight 1670 lb. Wing Loading (gross) 10.43 lbs./sq. ft. Power Loading 15.2

7mph difference in final approach speeds. That was my only point Jim. I suppose I can see how my wording could be taken another way, so I'll concede on that, but that's all I meant.

“What’s the issue with landing speed. It’s basically the same as a 152”.......... You are correct Ryan. I completely mis read what you said. Somebody pass the popcorn. Best regards, Jim

Where are you getting 35mph? Final to the tarmac in a 152 is 55kias or 63mph.

Stop putting words in my mouth Jim. I never said shit about it handling like a 152. I said the landing speeds are not terribly far off. A direct result to the op's list of concerns.

I gotta say I am with Sam here.

Science 101.... The Kinetic energy of an object goes up with the square of the velocity. So a C150 at 35 mph is say 35 squared or 1225. A Q2 at 70 mph is 4900 or 4 times more than a C150! That's a

Mathew, I also agree with Paul and Sam. If you feel your plane is to fast on landing or that it will be unreliable flying over populated areas (I fly in SF and LA area) you may want to consider a

There is not enough of a difference to pretend youre landing the space shuttle On Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 9:03:19 PM

Well, you need to point the 152 down a little more just before impact.

There is no official document, but some have tried. I would reach out to the U.K. folks. Several Tri-Q's over there and the certification process is more rigorous. In the end, you will have to

Anyone have a Tri-Q POH. I have the Q2 one but cant locate a Tri-Q version. Thanks, Ryan, COS Tri-Q in restoriation

Glad you're still with us Charlie. Not sure how comfortable you are sharing that story but it's love to be it of you are. What's the issue with landing speed anyway? It's basically the same as a

Who would engineer this BRS? Jim Handbury died developing the SR22 system if I remember correct. What would you use as a test vehicle to assure you that the whole system works reliably? Just asking?

I agree with Sam. If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane. But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it! Paul Fisher Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at. Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would