It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Detachable passenger aircraft design: The future or is there something wrong with this picture?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Ya...How about "NO"?

The weight, cost and complexity that this would add would likely result in the OPPOSITE of the goal of safer commercial flight.

Nope.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
If it's built like that, what does the cockpit section do for rear wheels on landing?


Good question.

Big net?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol. They sure have a strange definition of "flying to safety"




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yeah they do. Haha.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Maybe the pilots put the plane under control of the flight computers and get in the cabin before the Geronimo moment.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

while the pilots can keep flying to safety


I think I would go with the pilots...

Reminds me of an Apollo landing, only bigger.


Yeah exactly, there's an uncomfortable, almost Victorian "upstairs/downstairs" class conspiracy in the whole design.

The politicians and V.I.P.s would doubtlessly be allowed in the cockpit section, while the plebs must take their chances with the parachute.

The fact that somebody thinks of such a design that leaves one group mechanized and another in a possible tailspin is a metaphor for a lot in society. Pay enough extra and go in the front section.
edit on 19-1-2016 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I can hear the preflight announcement.

"In the case of an ocean landing, your seat back can be used as a paddle." Land ho.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

And if caught under a massive parachute, do not activate your life jackets, or you'll soon be stuck, dragged down and drown.
First swim away from the cabin capsule until in open water, and then inflate your jackets.

Apparently the same in a plane now that has water rushing in.
If you inflate the jackets inside the cabin being flooded you'll stick to the ceiling and drown.

www.quora.com...

edit on 19-1-2016 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla

Why don't they just have all the seats drop out with parachutes packed inside of them. Not cost effective sure but we're talking about alternatives to what we have today (Which is pretty much kiss your ass goodbye)


Because at 35,000 feet you would die of exposure and oxygen starvation well before you got to a breathable atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Like this:




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And the F-111 capsule worked great.


It was a lot smaller, it saved military pilots, a much more valuable commodity than your average civvies. The cost was gynormous, too.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

The chute would detach either just before, or just after hitting the water. As I said, this is just an enlarged ejection capsule, and those worked really well.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol. They sure have a strange definition of "flying to safety"


Whats even less workable is the twin chutes. The way they show it, they would tangle hopelessly in the slip stream upon deployment.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I can see a it as smaller plane but a large passenger jet. Wouldn't the force on the wings be very large. Some of those landing gear sets are quite large also. Although if engineers are challenged then they usually come though.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The cost wasn't "gynormous" at all. The entire F-111 cost $10.3M in 1973 dollars. The F-15, introduced in 1974 was $15M.

It has nothing to do with how valuable one is over the other. An airline is designed to make money. They can't do that if the tickets are priced out of the range of most people, and adding tons of safety equipment to the aircraft ends up in that happening. Air travel as it is now, is the safest it's been in history.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

The cost wasn't "gynormous" at all. The entire F-111 cost $10.3M in 1973 dollars. The F-15, introduced in 1974 was $15M.

It has nothing to do with how valuable one is over the other. An airline is designed to make money. They can't do that if the tickets are priced out of the range of most people, and adding tons of safety equipment to the aircraft ends up in that happening. Air travel as it is now, is the safest it's been in history.

My point, too in the beginning, they aren't going to try and engineer it its too expensive and complex at that scale.

I remember the fight to get plastic materials to be more fire safe… they didn't want to budge, even on that.

Any proposal for more safety in passenger flights in this regard is pretty much useless. People don't realize that 600 mph in the stratosphere is really, really, unlivable outside the thin skin and comfy seats they ride in.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Assuming it's not a water ditching, how would one ensure that if it lands in a really populated area that people on the ground get out of the way?

Even with a relatively gentle wafting, people could gather and rubber-neck, or mistake it as a weapon and shoot at it.

Maybe attach loudspeakers that play John Lennon's Imagine to show it is a peaceful object, simultaneous with fireworks to alert people to scatter.

I can imagine the poor cops on their megaphone:
"OK, nothing to see here people, please disperse!
We repeat, absolutely nothing to see here!
It's just the entire cabin of, I guess a 747 hanging on a parachute, while playing hippie crap and shooting fireworks.
Please just move away from the block and go home and watch the Kardashians ..."
edit on 19-1-2016 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They're not going to engineer it because, it's not necessary, it's far too complex, heavy, and expensive, and it would price tickets of aircraft out of reach of 90% of their passengers.

In 2014 (the final numbers for 2015 aren't in yet), there were 56.5 million flight hours, and 25.6 million departures, just looking at commercial aircraft. There were 278 onboard fatalities caused by accidents. Adding MH370, which wasn't counted in the official stats, as they don't know if it was an accident or not, that brings the total up to 517 onboard fatalities, in 25.6 million departures. That's as close to zero as you're going to see in aviation, ever.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Couldn't they make a smaller detachable compartment that everyone could "sardine" into rather than using two thirds of the fuselage?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Yeah, like a "black box" that four people can climb into.
Two pilots and two super V.I.Ps.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join