While it would be a simple task to mount a parachute recovery system as a replacement for the fairing just forward of the battery, it is not at all necessary to mount it on top. The advantage of top mounting is deployment in the direction of the final rescue orientation, allowing for initiation closer to the ground. The parachute system could just as easily be mounted underneath, with the harness attached above. It would simply require a higher deployment altitude. That is not the larger issue, however. Weight is.
At 550 grams, the DropSafe system would increase the Inspire 1's weight by 19%, increasing energy consumption and therefore reducing flight time by 14% which would lower the Inspire 1's flight time from 18/22 minutes to roughly 15/18 minutes based on weight alone. Aerodynamic penalties should the unit stick out into the airstream would increase battery consumption and reduce flight time even further.
The DropSafe system is designed to safely lower the massive maximum takeoff weight of the 11 kg S1000+. At 2.935 kg, the Inspire 1 weighs 27% of that, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an Inspire 1 specific parachute system at a bit more than 1/3 the volume and weight would be a better solution.
The lightest commercially available CO2 cartridge weighs 56 grams and contains 16 grams of CO2, which I assume is what DJI uses for their DropSafe system. Taking this as a granted, we can assume that the remaining 494 grams of the system are scaleable. A single squib (1/3 the DropSafe 3 squib system) with 1/3 the canopy area and line weight of the DropSafe system would provide equivalent or better protection than the DropSafe system provides the S1000+ at a weight of ~ 221 grams, which is 8% of the Inspire 1's weight, increasing energy consumption and reducing flight time by only 6% yielding only a one minute penalty resulting in flight times of 17/21 minutes.
Based only upon observations of DJI's previous brilliance in just about every aspect of the hardware that enables us to take reliable images in safe conditions, I cannot help but believe that they have such a system already in the works. Why else would they have provided unused, faired volume on top to the aircraft so close to the center of gravity?
If not, it is a significant opportunity for you entrepreneurs out there to design and build an aftermarket solution. Place it here:
Suggested Recovery Chute System Location
| 
lvl.2
lvl.4
lvl.3
