Survivability VS landing speed

"cavelamb himself" wrote

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.

Think the opening clip of "The Six Million Dollar Man."

Except now, he would be the 27.9 million dollar man.
--
Jim in NC

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...
Blueskies wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote:


Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

Loss of control during takeoff is more problematic. There typically
you don't have room to "slide" on the runway but bump into trees,
housing or whatever.



The other important factor is angle of impact...



Actually it is how quickly you stop...


Angle of contact has a big impact on how fast you stop.

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.


Unless there is a tree in the way ;-)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:30:01 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-07-06 20:07:25 -0700, " said:

Hi All,

Some time ago, kitplane had an article concerning the survivability as
a function of landing speed, at least I think that was the nature of
the article. Anyway, does anybody know about the article, or where I
can find a copy. If I remember correctly, the article was very well
written, and I am in need of some data that was presented.

There was also a TV program about the closing of the NASA testing
facility some where out east. They were doing a test on what
*appeared* to be a Lancair. They were showing the survivability from a
level attitude with a fair amount of downward momentum was not at all
good in the new composit planes as they are so strong structurally.
BUT they showed a dramatic improvement with energy absorbing seats.


Thanks in advance for the help

Best Regards,

Dave

I remember that article, but I am not sure it was Kitplane. I know it
was at least 3 or 4 years ago.

Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...

Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
thlink.net...


wrote:



Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

Loss of control during takeoff is more problematic. There typically
you don't have room to "slide" on the runway but bump into trees,
housing or whatever.



The other important factor is angle of impact...



Actually it is how quickly you stop...


Angle of contact has a big impact on how fast you stop.

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.



Unless there is a tree in the way ;-)


Which changes the impact angle to perpendicular?

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:30:01 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-07-06 20:07:25 -0700, " said:

Hi All,

Some time ago, kitplane had an article concerning the survivability as
a function of landing speed, at least I think that was the nature of
the article. Anyway, does anybody know about the article, or where I
can find a copy. If I remember correctly, the article was very well
written, and I am in need of some data that was presented.

There was also a TV program about the closing of the NASA testing
facility some where out east. They were doing a test on what
*appeared* to be a Lancair. They were showing the survivability from a
level attitude with a fair amount of downward momentum was not at all
good in the new composit planes as they are so strong structurally.
BUT they showed a dramatic improvement with energy absorbing seats.

Nasa Langley, you can see that gantry from most of the base.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...
Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...

Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


wrote:



Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

Loss of control during takeoff is more problematic. There typically
you don't have room to "slide" on the runway but bump into trees,
housing or whatever.



The other important factor is angle of impact...



Actually it is how quickly you stop...


Angle of contact has a big impact on how fast you stop.

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.



Unless there is a tree in the way ;-)
Which changes the impact angle to perpendicular?



Yes, I thought that as I sent...straight up...

;-)

Blueskies wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...
Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...

Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...


wrote:



Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

Loss of control during takeoff is more problematic. There typically
you don't have room to "slide" on the runway but bump into trees,
housing or whatever.


The other important factor is angle of impact...


Actually it is how quickly you stop...

Angle of contact has a big impact on how fast you stop.

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.


Unless there is a tree in the way ;-)
Which changes the impact angle to perpendicular?



Yes, I thought that as I sent...straight up...

;-)


Which, in terms used in physics, is said impact angle was normal to
the surface.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 2007-07-11 12:24:02 -0700, said:

Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

So you just have to pick your emergency landing sites more carefully. A
slower stall speed means you can pick a smaller site. Here, where the
whole area is covered with mountains, forests, and water you could have
real problems finding a landing site big enough to absorb the energy of
a fast airplane.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:

So you just have to pick your emergency landing sites more carefully. A
slower stall speed means you can pick a smaller site. Here, where the
whole area is covered with mountains, forests, and water you could have
real problems finding a landing site big enough to absorb the energy of
a fast airplane.

It's easy to find a spot to "absorb the energy of a fast airplane"...
it only has to be about the size of the frontal area of the aircraft.
The trick is to find an area that will absorb the energy slowly enough
that the carbon life forms inside aren't turned into hamburger.

That's why it always bugs me when I'm flying commercial when the pilot
says "we'll be on the gound shortly"... there are a LOT of ways to
"get an airplane on the ground" that I'd prefer to avoid...

Mark "easy does it" Hickey

"Dan" wrote in message ...
Blueskies wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...
Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...

Blueskies wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
ink.net...


wrote:



Its true that collision energy is proportional to relative speed
squared. But if on landing you don't collide with anything (or flip
over, etc.) you should have a good chance not getting hurt. Just like
cars spinning out of control, they are ok if they don't bump into
anything - roll over, etc.

Loss of control during takeoff is more problematic. There typically
you don't have room to "slide" on the runway but bump into trees,
housing or whatever.


The other important factor is angle of impact...


Actually it is how quickly you stop...

Angle of contact has a big impact on how fast you stop.

Even low velocity at a large angle could hurt.
But a low angle, even at high speed, shouldn't.


Unless there is a tree in the way ;-)
Which changes the impact angle to perpendicular?



Yes, I thought that as I sent...straight up...

;-)
Which, in terms used in physics, is said impact angle was normal to the surface.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


So, my really bad landings are normal?

;-)