Recently, Morgans posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote

I think this is the main factor that differentiates auto and aviation
fatalities. If you only consider accidents above 60 mph, I suspect
that automobiles will look a lot worse compared to aircraft, given
that many aircraft accidents at that speed, such as gear-up landings
result in no serious injuries.

I disagree, because of the type of accidents we are comparing.

Fatal car accidents usually are near head-on (close to 90 degree), or
another car hits the door, at near head-on in his direction of travel.
Airplanes that hit 90 degrees, or close to it are pretty much *always*
fatal, where sometimes (many times) car head-ons have people walking
away from it.

At 60 mph? I haven't seen 60 mph car crash test information, but the 45
mph tests don't encourage me to bet on anything much faster than that
being "safe" in a typical sedan or SUV.

Cars just don't have to be light. They just build them strong. Few
planes are even tested for crush zones, like cars are. Cars win,
IMHO.

As I said in response to Peter, stronger structures are not necessarily
safer structures. Some planes *are* tested for crush zones, and their
fuselage designs use similar principles to racing cars, where the energy
of the crash is dissipated by tossing off parts, the engine is deflected
down and under the cabin, etc. If we're talking about current technology
and design, then there isn't much point in using the old and/or bad
designs as a standard, IMO.

Regards,

Neil