On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:09:43 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

I agree this sounds impossibly fraught. What I would like (ideally) would
be the results of something akin to the car-crash tests that show how the
test-dummies fared in various scenarios - e.g. side impacts etc... I saw a
documentary about car-safety a few years ago, that mentioned that the
technology of crumple-zones and reinforced passenger compartments was
originally developed for WWII naval aircraft

I'm pretty surprised to hear about this. My knowledge, such as it is,
about WWII fighters in general, and Navy fighters in particular is
that they were either designed with production/armament in mind or
aerodynamics (speed or maneuverability) in mind, but building
"crumple-zones" wasn't a priority, if they even knew of the concept in
1940.

This is especially true for the Navy fighters which had to do all the
things the non Navy fighters did, but in addition they had to crash
repeatedly on the carrier deck in what the Navy laughably calls
"landings". Needless to say, they were supposed to be in one piece
after every landing, which means that they ended up heavier in general
than the typical same size Army fighter.

It just happens that in a violent crash, the outer appendages will
tend to shed from the airplane. I've seen footage of an F6F botching
the landing and colliding with the island, after which the only thing
left intact was the cockpit, with the pilot still in it. But I doubt
that Grumman planned on guys hitting the island when they designed the
airplane, it's just that it shed all it's heavy pieces during the
oblique impact. The pilot was extremely lucky he did not hit head on:
he would have been the crumple zone.

Corky Scott