If you’re going to jettison 90% of the plane to let it fall with parachutes, why not avoid all the complications of modularity and instead just have a parachute system that could let the entire plane float down? Or if the wings are the issue with floating down via parachute, just ditch those? Surely better than letting the pilots go down with the failing plane.
Wings are strong as fuck. You don’t want them detachable.
As for why not parachute the whole thing: The wings are also where the fuel is, which can weigh a ton. And the engines weigh a ton. Much easier to design a parachute when you jettison those.
Not just a ton, and I’m only chiming in here because the numbers are staggering. In the case of e.g. a 747 it’s something like 190 tons. 63,000 some odd gallons of fuel.
The fuel is also flammable, and the engines work by at the end of the day being on fire in a controlled manner. Having the fuel and engines hit the ground elsewhere from the occupants sounds like a good plan to me if you can manage a way to do it somehow.
If you ditch the fuselage even if the bottom of it on fire, it’s most likely on its way to a dunking in seawater in a couple of minutes while the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel carry on elsewhere. On paper it’s not a totally moronic idea, provided if and only if it can be carried out reliably somehow. (That’s the part I’m doubtful about.)
If you’re going to jettison 90% of the plane to let it fall with parachutes, why not avoid all the complications of modularity and instead just have a parachute system that could let the entire plane float down? Or if the wings are the issue with floating down via parachute, just ditch those? Surely better than letting the pilots go down with the failing plane.
Wings are strong as fuck. You don’t want them detachable.
As for why not parachute the whole thing: The wings are also where the fuel is, which can weigh a ton. And the engines weigh a ton. Much easier to design a parachute when you jettison those.
Not just a ton, and I’m only chiming in here because the numbers are staggering. In the case of e.g. a 747 it’s something like 190 tons. 63,000 some odd gallons of fuel.
The fuel is also flammable, and the engines work by at the end of the day being on fire in a controlled manner. Having the fuel and engines hit the ground elsewhere from the occupants sounds like a good plan to me if you can manage a way to do it somehow.
I would think the pilots move to the back and initiate detachment from there.
In which kind of emergencies would the pilots have enough controlled flight time to do that, while still being 100% sure the plane will crash?
Yeah, good point.
Whole airframe parachutes are a thing on small aircraft, and I’m certain this would be easier to do than a detachable cabin.
I’d guess the issue is fire. Probably the only situation where this would be necessary.
But like half of airline fires have been caused by things in the cargo hold.
The cargo hold is typically under the passenger compartment.
So in reality, there’s a 50ish percent chance that the pilots are just saving their own life.
If you ditch the fuselage even if the bottom of it on fire, it’s most likely on its way to a dunking in seawater in a couple of minutes while the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel carry on elsewhere. On paper it’s not a totally moronic idea, provided if and only if it can be carried out reliably somehow. (That’s the part I’m doubtful about.)
Jettison the cargo hold!
WE GOTTA DROP THE LOAD!