![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "anonymous coward" wrote in message news ![]() But that's not a feature of the basic airframe design, which is the subject that we're addressing here. Does it really matter? I guess it's pertinent; it's all about risk mitigation. But pilot protection (beyond accident prevention) starts with the airframe design. Having a crushable foam seat bottom won't matter much if you end up with the engine in your lap. protect against would be loads on the spine if you hit the ground horizontally and with a high rate of descent. Incidentally (and as you can Yes, but a hard landing might be the most important design point. How many ground loops begin with a pilot landing hard and losing control? guessing you would need quite soft foam, otherwise it wouldn't deform The foams they use for helmets are pretty hard. They won't deform until you hit a threshhold. You don't want something that will compress under normal loads. Another idea was putting a big chunk of foam at the front of the aircraft to slow the deacceleration if you hit something frontways. Say you have to We could be talking about a lot of energy. Might require a lot of foam. airframe may break. Perhaps a cubic foot of harder, crushable foam in the nosecone could reduce peak loads on the airframe and spread them more Where in the nose would you put it? I was thinking of maybe something behind the instrument panel, maybe attached to the firewall. Speaking of fire....I think I have an old bicycle helmet laying around. Maybe I'll put a match to it. Anyway, I'm sure there's data available on foams currently in use. I'd be interested to hear more about these gliders' reinforced cockpits. Perhaps all this speculation has been despeculated already? Perhaps. I would think that you'd have an easier time with composites in building a really stout shell around the pilot. Just a couple more plys of glass/carbon/kevlar/whatever..... It could give more protection than a metal design. Composites seem to be easier to design with for energy-dissipation. You can't tear them easily. The tubs that F-1 drivers sit in are all carbon, with the outer structure designed to shred nicely if the car hits a wall at high speed. I have a friend who used to work for Dan Gurney in Anaheim, and he gave me an insiders tour. He showed me the chassis that they had slammed. The inside of the tub looked new, but everything outside it was just shredded. Airplanes don't give anywhere near that level of protection. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |