First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Why doesn't airplane come with a parachute?
5247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Aircrafts are generally 10 times the weight of a reentry capsule.
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17

Granitefish wrote:

Aircrafts are generally 10 times the weight of a reentry capsule.


Then get 10 times more parachutes , I mean, theoretically, anything can be chuted right?
1872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
you would be dead anyways you cant exit a plane at 40,000 ft there is no oxygen its why the special forces when they do halo jumps they use oxygen. Same reason you cant climb Everest with out it and that's only around 22,000 ft
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

gsm642 wrote:

you would be dead anyways you cant exit a plane at 40,000 ft there is no oxygen its why the special forces when they do halo jumps they use oxygen. Same reason you cant climb Everest with out it and that's only around 22,000 ft


Again, you don't chute the passenger, you chute the plane
42421 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Reason, because they don't design planes that crash, or can't fly.
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

Holofernes wrote:

Reason, because they don't design planes that crash, or can't fly.


Well, for a plane that can chute and one that cannot chute I'd wish to be on board the one that can chute
13071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
It's completely unnecessary or more likely to hinder the plane.
As I understand the chute just slows the plane down, but it would also reduce the control, not to mention don't planes have fins to do that?
Adding chutes means you'll have a big ass plane falling slowly that you can't really direct anywhere
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of chutes.
"Just do 3x as many chutes as a shuttle"
30 chutes?
Planes have been around for a long time and without proper knowledge of them I don't think you're gonna workshop a better idea than the people working on them.
393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / England, Norfolk,...
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Firstly, too expensive. Parachutes ain't cheap, and an airline doesn't want to spend money unnecessarily, it's already spent a small fortune in regards to the safety of it's passengers, so it doesn't want to spend more. Secondly, the chances of being in a (fatal) plane crash are astronomically low, so low in fact, that if every plane were to be equipped with airbags, most of them would never be used, resulting in wasted money for the airline. Despite what the media (and you) believes, plane crashes are extremely rare, you have a higher chance of getting stuck by lightning than perishing in a plane accident (statistically speaking). The problem here is when your brain sees scary news like "Hundreds die in fatal plane crash", it over-reacts and immediately believes that all planes are dangerous, they aren't. This isn't anything to be embarrassed about, it happens to most people.

Thirdly, how would they be used? Say, a Boeing 747 (I happen to be a plane nerd) has a total engine failure and has a cut hydrolic system, how would the passengers utilize their shiny new parachutes? They can't (Not really). The only option is to open to door, which is a big no no, the crew wouldn't let that happen because it will create a miniature hurricane in the fuselage, which wouldn't aid the situation. Ok then, say a plane somehow split in two? Ah, yeah still, they couldn't, if a plane splits in two, everyone is f*cked on-board, If you could manage to clamber out of your seat whilst dropping hundreds of feet a second in a metal wreck, you would most likely either smash into the fuselage, or remain in the plane.

Lastly, it would complicate things. You know how at airports everything is hectic as the airline is trying to cram on it's passengers and take-off a.s.a.p, they are doing that for a reason. They wan't as many flights travelling at a time to maximize their profits, which is why airlines such as Ryan-air are making the big bucks, because they don't waste any time (Most of the time). Throwing parachutes into the mix would mean that not only would the airline have to change it's safety regulations, but it would also have to refit all of it's planes and train all of it's crews on how to teach people to use the parachutes. This would increase the amount of time it would take to the airplane to take off, and slow things down in general, loosing the airline money and creating a more hectic nature within the airport.
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17

ronchester44 wrote:

Firstly, too expensive. Parachutes ain't cheap, and an airline doesn't want to spend money unnecessarily, it's already spent a small fortune in regards to the safety of it's passengers, so it doesn't want to spend more. Secondly, the chances of being in a (fatal) plane crash are astronomically low, so low in fact, that if every plane were to be equipped with airbags, most of them would never be used, resulting in wasted money for the airline. Despite what the media (and you) believes, plane crashes are extremely rare, you have a higher chance of getting stuck by lightning than perishing in a plane accident (statistically speaking). The problem here is when your brain sees scary news like "Hundreds die in fatal plane crash", it over-reacts and immediately believes that all planes are dangerous, they aren't. This isn't anything to be embarrassed about, it happens to most people.

Thirdly, how would they be used? Say, a Boeing 747 (I happen to be a plane nerd) has a total engine failure and has a cut hydrolic system, how would the passengers utilize their shiny new parachutes? They can't (Not really). The only option is to open to door, which is a big no no, the crew wouldn't let that happen because it will create a miniature hurricane in the fuselage, which wouldn't aid the situation. Ok then, say a plane somehow split in two? Ah, yeah still, they couldn't, if a plane splits in two, everyone is f*cked on-board, If you could manage to clamber out of your seat whilst dropping hundreds of feet a second in a metal wreck, you would most likely either smash into the fuselage, or remain in the plane.

Lastly, it would complicate things. You know how at airports everything is hectic as the airline is trying to cram on it's passengers and take-off a.s.a.p, they are doing that for a reason. They wan't as many flights travelling at a time to maximize their profits, which is why airlines such as Ryan-air are making the big bucks, because they don't waste any time (Most of the time). Throwing parachutes into the mix would mean that not only would the airline have to change it's safety regulations, but it would also have to refit all of it's planes and train all of it's crews on how to teach people to use the parachutes. This would increase the amount of time it would take to the airplane to take off, and slow things down in general, loosing the airline money and creating a more hectic nature within the airport.


Right, you parachute the plane not the people. 6 parachutes per plane. It's cool I'd like an airplane nerd (no offense ) to verify the design
393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / England, Norfolk,...
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

fredreload wrote:


ronchester44 wrote:

Firstly, too expensive. Parachutes ain't cheap, and an airline doesn't want to spend money unnecessarily, it's already spent a small fortune in regards to the safety of it's passengers, so it doesn't want to spend more. Secondly, the chances of being in a (fatal) plane crash are astronomically low, so low in fact, that if every plane were to be equipped with airbags, most of them would never be used, resulting in wasted money for the airline. Despite what the media (and you) believes, plane crashes are extremely rare, you have a higher chance of getting stuck by lightning than perishing in a plane accident (statistically speaking). The problem here is when your brain sees scary news like "Hundreds die in fatal plane crash", it over-reacts and immediately believes that all planes are dangerous, they aren't. This isn't anything to be embarrassed about, it happens to most people.

Thirdly, how would they be used? Say, a Boeing 747 (I happen to be a plane nerd) has a total engine failure and has a cut hydrolic system, how would the passengers utilize their shiny new parachutes? They can't (Not really). The only option is to open to door, which is a big no no, the crew wouldn't let that happen because it will create a miniature hurricane in the fuselage, which wouldn't aid the situation. Ok then, say a plane somehow split in two? Ah, yeah still, they couldn't, if a plane splits in two, everyone is f*cked on-board, If you could manage to clamber out of your seat whilst dropping hundreds of feet a second in a metal wreck, you would most likely either smash into the fuselage, or remain in the plane.

Lastly, it would complicate things. You know how at airports everything is hectic as the airline is trying to cram on it's passengers and take-off a.s.a.p, they are doing that for a reason. They wan't as many flights travelling at a time to maximize their profits, which is why airlines such as Ryan-air are making the big bucks, because they don't waste any time (Most of the time). Throwing parachutes into the mix would mean that not only would the airline have to change it's safety regulations, but it would also have to refit all of it's planes and train all of it's crews on how to teach people to use the parachutes. This would increase the amount of time it would take to the airplane to take off, and slow things down in general, loosing the airline money and creating a more hectic nature within the airport.


Right, you parachute the plane not the people. 6 parachutes per plane. It's cool I'd like an airplane nerd (no offense ) to verify the design


Well, If you are suggesting that you attach parachutes to the plain, that wouldn't work.Firstly, the plane would be travelling far to fast for the parachutes to be deployed, if they were, it would most likely screw with the flaps and/or wings of the plane, because of the sudden and vast reduction in speed. Secondly, it's too risky. Planes travel forwards, not vertically, as space shuttles do, which is why they have parachutes. If you were to attach a parachute to the tail end of a plane, it would tip it up, and force everything (and everyone) to the cockpit end, it would also make landing it impossible, as it's weight would crush it. If you were to attach parachutes to the top of the fuselage and wings, it would be a more sensible idea, but still un-realistic. The plane would have to land like a returning space shuttle, which it isn't designed to do, if would break off the landing gear, and tear off the engines, which could lead to the fuel tanks combusting (worst case scenario). Basically, planes aren't designed to land with the help of parachutes, they aren't built to survive a vertical landing, which would cripple the plane, and most the of passengers. Also, it is too risky, for the plane's structural integrity and for the safety of the passengers.
393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / England, Norfolk,...
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Take a shot each time I say 'parachute'
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17

ronchester44 wrote:

Take a shot each time I say 'parachute'


Lol, my idea is like have two fins on the top of the plane, one on the front(close to the head), and one on the back(close to the tail), each with 3 parachutes, like directly on top the plane. But then you said break in half , and that could happen if they do not open up the front and back end at the same time. Now I am thinking some gliding ability design.
13071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

fredreload wrote:


ronchester44 wrote:

Take a shot each time I say 'parachute'


Lol, my idea is like have two fins on top of the plane, one on the front, and one on the back, each with 3 parachutes, like directly on top the plane. But then you said break in half , and that could happen if they do not open up the front and back end at the same time. Now I am thinking some gliding ability design.


...Don't planes already glide??
5239 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17

fearisfreedom wrote:


fredreload wrote:


ronchester44 wrote:

Take a shot each time I say 'parachute'


Lol, my idea is like have two fins on top of the plane, one on the front, and one on the back, each with 3 parachutes, like directly on top the plane. But then you said break in half , and that could happen if they do not open up the front and back end at the same time. Now I am thinking some gliding ability design.


...Don't planes already glide??


Parachute glider, you slow the plane down to a certain speed then deploy. If the plane explodes in mid air imma kiss my ass goodbye
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_%28GPO%29_-_Parachute_Glider.jpg
393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / England, Norfolk,...
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

fredreload wrote:


ronchester44 wrote:

Take a shot each time I say 'parachute'


Lol, my idea is like have two fins on top of the plane, one on the front, and one on the back, each with 3 parachutes. But then you said break in half , and that could happen if they do not open up at the same time. Now I am thinking some gliding ability design.


V V
(planeplaneplaneplane)


Yeah, even then, parachutes being deployed on the top of the plane would result in it having to land vertically, which would break the landing and most likely damage the fuselage and the engines, which could result in a fire. However, a gliding ability is a better option, although it still presents problems. If a plane's engines were to fail at 36,000 feet (The average cruising alt) It couldn't glide towards the ground because it is to high up, and would most likely end up falling and smashing into the ground, if a plane was lower in altitude, it may work because gliders are meant for low altitude use. A glider option is a better option, but it is still unlikely, it would mean an entirely new plane would have to be designed, it would also change most aspects of an airline if this said plane were to be introduced into service. It would most likely end up loosing the air line money and passengers, which is the complete opposite of what they want.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.