First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Why doesn't airplane come with a parachute?
Posted 8/4/17
yes they come some have..
5627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17

ronchester44 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. 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.


Hmm, glider does not work at high altitude, how about jet packs? One that shoots out air it could be in any direction and counteract gravity. For the plane of course. Like that re-landing S rocket
513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / England, Norfolk,...
Online
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17
Haha, you are running out of ideas I can tell. Well, so far we haven't developed a reliable form or air accident prevention, we will in the future, but for now we rely on the pilots. Basically anything that alters the plane's speed (dramatically) such as parachutes or "jet packs" is a no go. Instead of developing (or thinking about) these insane anti-air accident measures, I think we should be more concerned in regards to developing a solution to extreme cross winds when landing (which is the most dangerous aspect of any flight), but alas. Planes won't be around of much longer (Or at least the ones that run on fossil fuels and non-renewable energy), but again, looking at the statistics, there isn't really much of a need to develop some insane safety measure such as parachutes.
3704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17
neither would be any good and just bring up the cost...
parachutes seems pointless athough there... might be a chance of usage even if that means for the people or the plane.
But even then, the chance of them surviving such a long fall untrained and various other issues would see that as pointless.

I would see that most or rather all of the time the parachutes would get destroyed.
You could maybe try to make a reinforced "bobble" or to put it this way another shell for the plane that is just for the people inside with a parachute inside it that gets released of the outer shell breaks etc.

although that's unrealistic from weight and how to make that work or the money put into that.
also it would most likely mean a weaker outer frame work as well.
Posted 8/4/17
Because they're massive, plus commercial airlines are already incredibly safe, and they keep getting safer.
34750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Because people wouldn't know how to use them anyway.
37410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Bellingham WA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17
Many small planes do come with whole plane parachutes. It's been a thing for quite a while now. Google it.
18810 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
i dont really see the point. airplanes are the most safe way to travel.
6829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 8/4/17 , edited 8/4/17
From my understanding the reason most commercial airliners dont have giant parachutes is... physics. if the parachute were deployed on these massive planes they would simply break apart. Not sure about you, but I would take my chances with the pilot rather then gravity


nemoskull wrote:

i dont really see the point. airplanes are the most safe way to travel.


IDK I find this statement to be either a half truth or BS. More people drive in cars then fly on planes by a long shot. so its not an apples to apples comparison. On top of that of the car accidents... I would venture to say the majority are non life threatening and usually fender benders. If you get in a car accident you could become a vegetable, if you get in a plane accident your reduced to minerals.

EDIT Would be interesting to know the survival rates of car accidents vs survival rate of plane accidents. Probably someone has the study but nobody will publish it.
7254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Washington State
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
This question reminds me of when someone asked why they don't transport oil with planes.
23853 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Why don't parachutes come with planes? That would be an excellent way to sell parachutes if you ask me.
23853 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

DevinKuska wrote:

From my understanding the reason most commercial airliners dont have giant parachutes is... physics. if the parachute were deployed on these massive planes they would simply break apart. Not sure about you, but I would take my chances with the pilot rather then gravity


nemoskull wrote:

i dont really see the point. airplanes are the most safe way to travel.


IDK I find this statement to be either a half truth or BS. More people drive in cars then fly on planes by a long shot. so its not an apples to apples comparison. On top of that of the car accidents... I would venture to say the majority are non life threatening and usually fender benders. If you get in a car accident you could become a vegetable, if you get in a plane accident your reduced to minerals.

EDIT Would be interesting to know the survival rates of car accidents vs survival rate of plane accidents. Probably someone has the study but nobody will publish it.


There is truth to it. The number of plane complications are measured out of millions, whereas cars are in the thousands.

One of the perceived dangers of flying a plane is normally linked to....

-Dependency on others, versus driving one's own car.

-The rarity of plane accidents, leading to underexposure and thus a lack of apathy compared to the number of cars.

-Plane crashes are publicized much more than any car accidents, and the huge number of fatalies appears high when in one dose, but comparably much lower when averaged out.

1342 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Ireland
Offline
Posted 8/4/17
Massive parachutes are expensive.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/4/17

KevHunt wrote:

This question reminds me of when someone asked why they don't transport oil with planes.


You can actually transport oil with planes...
15720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 8/5/17

fredreload wrote:

Hmm, glider does not work at high altitude, how about jet packs? One that shoots out air it could be in any direction and counteract gravity. For the plane of course. Like that re-landing S rocket


You know that you are essentially describing a VTOL at this point?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.