$13k approx

Unfortunately, no. BRS scrapped that project a few years ago.

This is a 182 😮

It's not for any Cessna retracts.

I'll answer the question your impact is still going to be much less than with out 😂

Pull the chute and impact the ground safely.

We'd be happy to guide you through a build. It's a great experience. Let me know if you have any questions.

Yup. Blew that one so we updated the video with panel and interior pictures. Enjoy! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iNNjprZhmru5las.html

There are several people working on different systems. Some use an engine mounted compressor and there are some advantages to that. Mine is a modular electric system that goes in the baggage area. It's 35 lbs in the wrong place (tail) but we are going to get it operating and see how it works.

@@DougGoodrichThanks for the information! I like the idea of an electrical system- I imagine better performance on ground at low rpm when you need it- I think I'd forgo the parachute for the a/c!

That's likely true. But at 10,000 to 15,000 dollars to replace, a flight school with several trainers would be out a big pile of money when it came time to replace them. And a few days down time.

@@kilopapa1449 I agree. Someday when I own my own Cessna this will be first upgrade I get ♥️

I own a Cessna 182. I can slow it down and land it at about 46 knots. It's true that there are places I've been that a parachute would have been safer than and attempted landing. However, when flying over the mountains a couple of times I realized that if you pull a parachute you have absolutely no control over where you land. You can be put down on the edge of a cliff which would put you in a worse position than trying to land the plane in a valley. I have contemplated installing one in my 182. It would decrease useful load, increase my stall speed, and perhaps induce me to take chances that I otherwise wouldn't. Additionally there have been failures of these devices and if you plan on them and there is a failure it's probably a lot worse than trying to land. Cirrus aircraft have a higher stall speed than high wing Cessnas. If you train well I'm not sure how much more safety this system affords in a Cessna 182. I am willing to be proven wrong however.

The problem is the majority of crashes are not at high altitude, but taking off, or landing, or what they call CFIT controlled flight into terrain, due to bad weather, were you cannot use it in anyway, but yes if you flying at altitude, then it does make sense, considering the high costs involved for installation

Not in favor of any more mandatory safety regulations. Don't need the government to protect me more.

Bankruptcy, lazer cut parts that are cracking when riveted (Van’s advertises cnc punched holes not lazer cut), and bad primer on Quick build kits that caused corrosion...

@@gmonnig Whoa! Thanks for sharing.

Van's is taking the issues seriously and are making corrections and working closely with their builders.

Don't think this effect the Cof G more like effect the amount of luggage you can carry

C of G DEPENDS COULD DIFFER ON TWO OF THE SAME AIRCRAFT, DEPENDING ON WHAT Has BEEN INSTALLED AND WOULD BE WORKED OUT AFTERWARDS NORMALLY

C of G is calculated on and aircraft, and is not fixed

Huge

The parachute will help the C of G. 182s are nose heavy.

Sure. We have an EP917Ti coming shortly for a TSi. We are looking forward to reporting on it soon.

@@DougGoodrich can’t wait to see that!