Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).
I find the statement below (from their web site) interesting. It makes me wonder about the BRS loads imposed during activation and whether LSA manufacturers are selling the "safety" without the structure.
As far as "design engineering" is concerned...most of these manufacturers contract their design work out to one of the primary 2 or 3 design "firms" in Europe to do their calculations and design consulting, and these consist of small 2- 3 person offices that have been involved in just about everyone one of these aircraft. No wonder they all look alike, and no wonder they share the same parts such as landing gear, and wheel pants and canopies, and wing profiles, etc. One of the more comical, but sadly, lethal aspects of this has been the quick application of "ballistic parachute option" to these aircraft, in another "me too" hasty approach to marketing. Let's think for one minute, the opening shock of the canopy of the ballistic parachute upon actuation of the chute after its rocket deployment is a 5-G shock, yet most all of these planes have maximum 4-G airframes, so it is pretty clear the aircraft will be torn apart in the sky and there will be no life saving function. None of these planes have done their parachute engineering like Cirrus did, and the ballistic parachute manufacturers can verify this for you. Why? Because it takes lots and lots of engineering hours and expensive CAD/FEA stations and software and experienced people. Just like designing a real airplane does.
I think that whoever wrote this doesn't know what they are talking about. That 4G load is so the wings don't fall off. But the parachute doesn't attach to the wings, it attaches directly to the fuse'. There is no comparison at all. It makes me question the rest of the story about the designers, which I admit I know nothing about. To me this sounds like a someone with an ax to grind - like maybe a manufacturer that doesn't build an LSA and is worried about their own sales?
All airplanes with parachutes will suffer severe damage with deployment. Certainly the Cirrus does as the 'chute straps are embedded in the fibreglass and are ripped out at deployment. The chute is not to save the plane, it's to save the passengers.
Yes, the load testing normally listed is for wing loading, not fuselage stresses. But, I'd be curious what the loads really are during a parachute deployment on the attachment points, and what the deceleration loads are on components that stick out on the airplane (such as wings and other bits.)
I read the entire website and zero information about the engine. No maker, no model, no horsepower. All the pictures of the presumed prototype have a spinner but no prop.
How they will get all the features they claim and still meet the load capacity and range will be a good question.
There's also probably a good reason why electronics companies build glass panel avionics and not airplane companies.
The chute is traveling under rocket power away from the airplane. usually away from the top of the airplane before the bridal gets tight.
The chutes normally have a slider to slow the opening and reduce shock.
This design only lists 2 neg G in the specs. Is that ultimate load before breaking or limit loading without permanent deformation? Most LSA designs don't specify.
Standard normal category airplanes are 3.8 G + for limit loads but have 150% safety factor or 5.7+ ultimate load minimum at gross weight.
their 6 g + limit is pretty standard if it is ultimate load.
I do wonder about the gross weight thing. I know the X air H failed it's British section S static test. Fuselage and jury struts failed below the limit load. Many, including our two were already out flying. The wings were never tested as an integral part of the fuselage. Just the wing assembly was tested bolted to a wall. No notice ever came from the factory or dealer. I just happened to find out by luck. then the parts needed were impossible to get.
Of course I could have bought a new kit and got the "upgrades" The SLSA and kits now sold have all the "upgrades"
If a LSA design passed the British section S requirements for the weights you want to fly it is probably an OK design. They swing them into walls to test the gear and conduct real independent flight and structural tests. Not like the USA. Pretty thorough
I do like the shape and look of this AVEO airplane. The styling is nice and it looks like it would fly well. Don't know anything about the company or designer.