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

a reply to: eisegesis

If it's a takeoff or landing accident, which are the most common, you're not going to have time to move to any sort of pod system, and if they build pods around the seats it's going to be even heavier and more complex. At cruising altitude you're either going to be maneuvering pretty hard, or the fuselage is going to have been breached making it hard to move around to get to an escape pod type system.

The reality is that air travel is so safe now, that it's as close to perfectly safe as you are going to find anything in this world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If it's a takeoff or landing accident, which are the most common, you're not going to have time to move to any sort of pod system, and if they build pods around the seats it's going to be even heavier and more complex.

I understand, but I don't think this system was necessarily designed for takeoff or landing accidents. My idea was to borrow the same concept while reducing the amount of weight falling to earth. This would effectively reduce the amount of drag needed to slow the module's decent to "safety", hopefully reducing the systems additional weight. I guess I'll have to wait for the graphene revolution to take place. Nobody likes a fatty, lol.

The reality is that air travel is so safe now, that it's as close to perfectly safe as you are going to find anything in this world.

I agree. Are you saying that I need to develop thicker skin?

a reply to: eisegesis

There's probably better "lightweight" material now, but why don't we bring back the Zeppelin?
I mean one major accident ...

In fact, why not attach an updated, streamlined Zeppelin to the cabin, and then it could be navigated by propeller if the the pilots detach it?

originally posted by: eisegesis
Are you saying that I need to develop thicker skin?

Well it would probably help keep something from going through it if you WERE in a crash.

I wonder how many times this would actually be viable in past accidents. I would think major structural damage might prevent it from working. Also there may be a requirement for certain range of attitude for the plane for proper deployment. It would be an interesting study to review.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: halfoldman

nice idea but yes many flaws i can imagine

be better if each individual passenger seat was an ejector seat like pilots.

the roof just opens and then Bam! everyone shoots out with a parachute attached to the seat.
you might have the odd collision but the majority will survive at least

in addition each seat has GPS so they can be found as they might be at sea, and each chair has an inflatable thing in case you land in water.

Sorry, but this is an atrocious idea. I did it once. You want to shoot an out of shape 250 pound couch potato out at 20 gs at 550 mph into -55F air with insufficient oxygen to live. Compute the wind chill on that. Also the weight of the seat (a Martin Baker Mk7 weighed 300 pounds with survival equipment.) No parachute now made under TSO C23b could withstand the opening shock. Since Martin Baker now gets almost a quarter million dollars per seat and since the weight of the seats cuts passenger capacity in half, your couch potato would pay $5,000 for his Atlanta to Chicago ticket, for the joy of being tightly strapped in to a very uncomfortable seat for hours with no bathroom breaks. And with a premature firing malfunction rate of only 1 per million, we're still shooting out 3,600 grandmothers and businessmen and screaming children (Yay!) per year out into the wild, cold, anoxic, blue yonder.

Most aviation accidents happen 8 minutes before landing or 4 minutes after takeoff. The crew is usually unaware of the pending accident or too busy trying to fix the problem. It is an extremely rare event that a plane crashes in the cruise phase of the flight.

To have a capsule escape system, it would entail a very specific envelope for its' use. In the landing phase (-8 minutes) the system would have to have a zero altitude loss ability. The closer to landing the more important this type of system becomes. In milspeak this is call a zero zero system...zero airspeed and zero altitude. It would also need to be self righting. You don't want to be shot into the ground after escaping the accident. The result would be two crash sites.

On take off, the same zero zero system is required. You may experience an aborted take off which can be as simple as rolling to the end of the runway to a runway excursion. Runway excursions often involves fire. If a take off is made the next four minutes (+4) is the other critical phase of the flight. The longer into this phase the safety envelope gets larger. Accidents here are usually caused by weather or mechanical failure. In the landing phase weather is involved more often than mechanical issues.

A rescue parachute has been used with success in sports planes. Larger transport aircraft are much too heavy and fast for this type of system.

a reply to: halfoldman

Is there a battle bridge?

a reply to: greencmp

An updated version might not be a bad idea on even passenger aircraft these days.
At least a one-man cabin with a gatling gun on top.

a reply to: halfoldman

lol

Make it so!

This thread reminded me of how they used this concept to separate the warhead from the Snark before detonation.

a reply to: CraftBuilder

Thank for clarifying, without the image I thought it was a joke about sarcasm.

a reply to: CraftBuilder

Well yes, as a weapon that falls apart from design, one just needs to look at the arrows of ancient Khoisan cultures.
Only the poisoned tip was meant to penetrate the prey, and the shaft would fall away.
They were designed that way.
It was highly successful for at least 50 000 years.

However, in passenger airlines both those in the tip and the butt-end would probably want to have a likelihood of survival in case of detachment.

Detachment is probably not a bad idea in itself.
If one cellular organism didn't detach somewhere along the line, heaven's knows, we might still be bacteria.

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: CraftBuilder

Well yes, as a weapon that falls apart from design, one just needs to look at the arrows of ancient Khoisan cultures.
Only the poisoned tip was meant to penetrate the prey, and the shaft would fall away.
They were designed that way.
It was highly successful for at least 50 000 years.

However, in passenger airlines both those in the tip and the butt-end would probably want to have a likelihood of survival in case of detachment.

Detachment is probably not a bad idea in itself.
If one cellular organism didn't detach somewhere along the line, heaven's knows, we might still be bacteria.

Modularity has never been detrimental. I'm sure a standard will win out and we can spawn new competitors who can focus only on module designs greatly expanding the field of competition out of aviation companies.

That would be the free market way to do it anyway.

originally posted by: schuyler

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.

"There has been a total failure of the control systems of the aircraft, and we are going to make a non-standard interaction with the terrain in about um...five minutes. The flight attendant will now instruct you in making your first HALO jump. Don't be alarmed! Many NCOs are able to do this at Yuma with only a few hours of training, and only a few end up as lawn darts in the 14th hole of the local golf course. Please watch carefully and pay attention"

I don't think that anyone is going to throw granny out at 35k. It would be infinitely safer to ride the plane down to the ground unless there is a catastrophic failure. Even with the system described in the OP, the injuries would be monumental. If the system is deployed in cruise flight there would be no warning with passengers unbelted and flight attendants out with their carts. Many things flying around the cabin would be devastating to everyone. The people could experience many Gs both positive and negative. You would have to damn near kill the passengers to save a few of them.

any body else recalling the " presidential escape pod " on the plane in ` escape from new york ` - and how that didnt quite work as planned [ out of frying pan - into fire ]

ok - having got the silly response out of the way - this " idea " strikes me as the ` brain child ` of someone with zero experience of any engineering discipline .

further - they dont seem to have actually studied real aircraft crashes either

somethings look great in twee little cartoons - but dont actualy work in real life - this is one

I think deployment of this system on the most common of accidents, takeoffs and landings, would look somewhat like Wiley's Acme parachute popping open and floating back to cover him after he slams into the canyon floor.

What's this lever for captain? Oh, never mind, I hope the passenger compartment doesn't land on uncle Sam's house.

It could be the most thrilling amusement ride ever made.