No parachute on a plane? How about a Hercules...
Discussion
OK this may seem like a daft question but I would love an answer anyway.
Being terrified of flying I have always fancied the idea of a parachute on a plane so if it all goes wrong I can jump out to safety (or be eaten by a shark). Since I know this is not practical and would be almost impossible to achieve I wonder if my crazy idea had any grounds.
I was thinking that all these Hercules seem to have the ability to deploy tanks, jeeps etc from the rear hatch. What is stopping someone taking one of these aircraft and filling them with passenger capsules that could be released should the aircraft hit major issues.
Being terrified of flying I have always fancied the idea of a parachute on a plane so if it all goes wrong I can jump out to safety (or be eaten by a shark). Since I know this is not practical and would be almost impossible to achieve I wonder if my crazy idea had any grounds.
I was thinking that all these Hercules seem to have the ability to deploy tanks, jeeps etc from the rear hatch. What is stopping someone taking one of these aircraft and filling them with passenger capsules that could be released should the aircraft hit major issues.
How about this?
http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
Geneve said:
How about this?
http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
I have seen these before but I read somewhere that a commercial airline would require such a big chute it would not take off!http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
Geneve said:
How about this?
http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
To be quite honest I would probably end up using that to land in my garden and get the Plane stuck http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/?item=parachu...
'Apparently' it has saved 200 lives so far.
MarkK said:
1'15" is a new take on 'hit the ground running'!As for going out the side, probably not much fun at 500mph...
In reality, chutes for civilain flights ain't gonna happen due to weight, space and the fact that half of them will pull the ripcord inside and kill everybody else.
Having flown as a commercial pilot for fifteen years (and a bit privately before that), the only thing likely to make me want to use a parachute is structural failure. The only realistic likelihood of that happening is if I have a midair collision whilst flying in formation or a structural failure whilst flying aerobatics. I wear a chute as an insurance policy whilst doing both. There is a possible exception of an in-flight fire but even then, I would almost certainly take my chances putting it in a field somewhere. The aeroplane I use to pay the mortgage doesn't have the parachute option anyway.
In any other case, I see no need for one as I will be far safer remaining on board until after the accident has finished. That may sound flippant but there is very little on any aeroplane which will kill you quickly enough to need parachute other than what I have already referred to and quite honestly, most failures will result in a checklist procedure and - for most twins - landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Now ask about ETOPS or the Boeing 747 and it's dreaded three-engined approach.
In any other case, I see no need for one as I will be far safer remaining on board until after the accident has finished. That may sound flippant but there is very little on any aeroplane which will kill you quickly enough to need parachute other than what I have already referred to and quite honestly, most failures will result in a checklist procedure and - for most twins - landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Now ask about ETOPS or the Boeing 747 and it's dreaded three-engined approach.
Edited by JW911 on Friday 21st October 22:56
uber said:
What is stopping someone taking one of these aircraft and filling them with passenger capsules that could be released should the aircraft hit major issues.
Because no bean counter is ever going allow the expense due to the shear minuscule odds of it being needed. That's just for starters...... 'thinks' regulatory authorities and certification (how rich are you???), legal aspects, passenger confidence. passenger willingness etc etc.Also, IIRC a parachute to bring down a 747 sized aircraft would have to be four times the size of a football pitch. My company encourage me to take only the legal minimum fuel required when conditions are conducive (doesn't mean I actually do
). A chute that size is one heck of a lot of weight to carry every day when as said, it would be only needed once in a blue moon... How could you engineer in safely 400 capsules for a 747, or over 500 for an A380?
Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
Eric Mc said:
How could you engineer in safely 400 capsules for a 747, or over 500 for an A380?
Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
B-58 Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
Mr Dave said:
Eric Mc said:
How could you engineer in safely 400 capsules for a 747, or over 500 for an A380?
Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
B-58 Not to mention that you would probably have to ensure that the passengers remained strapped into their seat and capsule for the entire flight. That would be fun.
Ejection mechanisms for aircraft are heavy, complex and actually quite dangerous in their own right - and don't always work.
The history of ejection capsules (as opposed to ejection seats) shows that in the few aircraft they have been used (off hand I can only think of the XB-70, the F-111 and the B1B) they have not been that effective.
coanda said:
Dunno, but the F-111 capsule worked well enough.
I think the main reason for the use of capsules on the B-58 was because of the expected speeds at ejection.
Yep, developed after a test crew from Convair were killed after ejecting at high speed early in the program. It was also to protect against depressurisation and the pilot could still control the aircraft through the use of rudimentary linkages whilst encapsulated.I think the main reason for the use of capsules on the B-58 was because of the expected speeds at ejection.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/eb58caps.htm
http://www.ejectionsite.com/b58capsule.htm
Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 23 October 08:51
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff