| Author |
Message |
|
shocktroop
|
 Posted: Sep 23, 2006 - 12:35 PM
|
 
|
|
Active Member
Joined: May 22, 2005 - 01:25 PM
Posts: 170
Status: Offline
|
When ever Boeing or Airbus jets had to crashland in the sea, they would always have a serious problem:
When they would touch down on the water, their engines acted as brakes causing the aircraft to go from about 400km/h to a full stop in acouple of seconds which would completly destroy the aircraft and most of the time kill everone in it.
So this crazy idea came up in my head (and I am sure I am not the first one to think of this), why not create charges or something that will allow the engines to disconnect from the wings when the pilots push the emergency button during a crash landing at sea, which will allow th plane to glide more smoothly on the water and will give the plane and its passengers a higher chance of survival? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 22, 2013 - 12:59 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
akruse21
|
|
Posted: Sep 23, 2006 - 03:40 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 30, 2005 - 12:38 PM
Posts: 810
Status: Offline
|
HA HA, i can just imagine the warnings and notes in the manuals for that one. Along with the switch guard  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2006 - 01:31 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
An "engine jettison" would actually be more harmful than just keeping the pylons on. Reason being is there's no guarantee that the pylons would come off clean enough to leave the wing in a flyable enough state to make the ditch safely. Odds are they'd take large chunks of the leading edge with 'em (along with any and all electrical and hydraulic cross-connections) and if that happened high enough you'd get uncontrollable reactions from the jet, versus making a (relatively) smooth entry had you kept the pylons.
In a forced ditch, the idea is to enter the water as if you're doing a gear-up landing on land. Slow and controlled (if possible) entering tail-first with a slight nose-high attitude. Yes, there'd be rapid decel and the pylons and maybe parts of the wings will shear away. But you'll have far more survivors that way. |
_________________
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
|
|
|
|
|
|
falconfixer860261
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2006 - 03:44 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: May 17, 2005 - 04:21 PM
Posts: 984
Status: Offline
|
| The statistical probability of having to ditch is so low that it is not worth the expense. In addition we have a hard time keeping mechs from blowing slides and fire bottles on accident. I can jst see two engines laying on the ground in the hangar following a loud band and an even louder, "oops!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
habu2
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2006 - 04:28 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
| Has everyone forgotten that (civilian) over-water routes are planned to minimize such a requirement? Ever heard of ETOPS & LROPS???? |
_________________
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
