Airplane safety system/Plane with a device to save passengers ... 2

[McDermott1711]

Hi everybody,
I've recently received a link which shows a patented system for safety of aircraft passengers. Is this applicable or just a flash from a non-expert person's mind?[highlight ][/highlight]

 

[IRstuff]

double the cost
double the weight
probability that system won't work when needed: high
probability that system will cause other problems when not needed: moderate

Just because someone patents something, doesn't mean it's feasible or practical or even realizable.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[Comcokid]

Weight is everything for aircraft. The swing-wing US Super Sonic Transport of the 1970's was largely doomed by the weight of just the hinge joint in the wings even though it would have greatly reduced the landing speed and improved fuel efficiency when at lower speeds.

Complexity results in more issues, higher costs, and higher weight. All electrical and environmental cables would need mechanisms to detach from the aircraft. Atmospheric pressure would need to be maintained in the capsule after separation. More mechanisms, more systems, more weight. more possibilities of failure and dead passengers even if the capsule successfully ejected.

Weight affects fuel costs. Complexity affects acquisition cost, training costs, maintenance costs. All of these are big issues for commercial carriers who shave pennies for savings to remain (hopefully) profitable.

Better to look at the simpler safety system that are available - ballistic parachutes for the whole aircraft. I'm not aware of any large aircraft that are equipped with these, but many small private planes and ultra-light aircraft are, and they have saved lives already. Even when the plane was OK but the pilot was just disoriented and unable to fly the aircraft in the weather conditions these have saved lives.

 

[IRstuff]

THAT's been applied for patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20130175398.pdf

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[tbuelna]

"....or just a flash from a non-expert person's mind?"

That's it exactly.

Modern commercial aircraft are already incredibly safe to fly on. In fact, you are probably safer traveling on a modern commercial aircraft than you are using any other form of transportation. Adding all of the additional complexity involved with that system would only reduce reliability.

 

[rb1957]

IMVHO ... what an absolutely stupid concept ! to have the passengers all in a cabin that can be ejected from an airplane. How would it land safely ? what about the pilots ? how would passengers in their seats react to these very different loads ??

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

That's actually my optimistic scenario; I'm imagining parachutes failing to deploy and the plane was too low to have proper parachute deployment any way, and the pilots and plane successfully ditch in the river while the passenger cabin is strewn across the countryside.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[BrianPilot]

There are many designs in aviation that never make it past the conceptual phase. It isn't that this system couldn't be made to work, but aircraft design is driven by the economics of new technology. As others have said, this solution would add a considerable amount of weight to an existing airframe design, which means increased fuel consumption, lower available payload, and major retrofit costs. Overall, I'd say the only applications could be for military or special use aircraft.

Again, all you need to do is visit any air & space museum to see examples of flyable prototypes that never make it into production, either because of economics or mission fit. (And you'd even see some aircraft that still went into commercial use, despite their design shortcomings ... great example: the Concord).

 

[kontiki99]

Looks like air conditioning, electrical, pneumatic, ground servicing connection mess.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice however, experience suggests that in practice, there is!

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm affiliated with.

 

[KENAT]

See the F111 for a miniature version.

What about the pilots though in this frivolity.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[berkshire]

It would appear that Airbus is working along similar lines for different reasons, However it would not be hard to fit the cabin section with parachutes and allow it to be ejected from the aircraft.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[KENAT]

it would not be hard to fit the cabin section with parachutes and allow it to be ejected from the aircraft.

OK, I'm thinking the Thunderbirds got there first though.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Comcokid]

Interesting - potential prior art rendering the patent invalid. From a comic book at that!

 

[FastMouse]

Thunderbird 2 first flew a few years prior to 2026, so there is still time to get that patent application in . Anyway, International Rescue will be a shadowy organization and the date of that first flight was always unclear. There is even some evidence to indicate that the first flight occurred sometime shortly before 2065, so perhaps there is even more time available.

Oops, no there isn't. Fairchild got there first with the XC-120. Link

 

[KENAT]

Well played FastMouse, I'd forgotten about that one.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[berkshire]

Here is more footage on the
XC 120 however it would not appear to invalidate Airbuses patent.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[FastMouse]

I must be honest. I was not 100% serious.

However, if comics (and other media) constitute prior art, that Gerry Anderson guy must be a real problem for Airbus' IP managers. What about the Eagles on Moonbase Alpha? Link

 

[PawelPtak]

I do not know I'm not serious too.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Good one, FastMouse! I think the litmus test for prior art is feasibility at the date of conception. It does not need to exist physically, it just needs to be demonstrably possible. Ooooh, Star Trek transporter and replicator!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[Timelord]

These type of systems have been available for small planes for more than a couple of years. Here is one small plane manufacturer that equips all its planes.

http://cirrusaircraft.com/

Timelord