|
Let me know when an automatic transmission can read your mind and downshift in preparation for overtaking someone. Back on topic, GA aircraft are very stingy with payload. A 4-seater aircraft is really only suitable for 2 adults, fuel, and some camping gear. Adding a chute takes away some very precious weight. Additionally some aircraft manufacturers 'cheat' and rely on the chute instead of fixing problems with their airframe. In the case of Cirrus aircraft, if you get into a spin, you are supposed to pop the chute (which results in an uncontrolled landing, possibly hard enough to give spinal damage, possibly writing-off the airframe) instead of doing a fairly trivial spin-recovery with the normal controls. If you want to improve safety we'd be better off making it easier for manufacturers to legally upgrade designs (automatic mixture control, fuel injection etc) rather then stick with obsolete designs due to legal barriers. Sure engines designed circa WWII have a proven track record, but we'll never move forward if it's too difficult to bring new ones into service. Sure Light Sport Aircraft exist which have less red tape, but the airframe strength has to be compromised to meet an arbitrary weight restriction.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Sylink posted:Is there a reason small plane engines still have carbs vs being fuel injected? I'm guessing it has to do with power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:In general, commercial aviation is a better alternative to chutes and GA should just be banned outright.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Reminder: (most) Gliders don't have engines yet can fly for 8 hours straight - whatever radio wizardry must not drain their batteries. Gliders themselves can cost under 10k so are hardly a "rich mans toy". There are also planes flying without electrical systems. See and Avoid does generally work given such a tiny percent of fatalities are due to mid-airs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Luckily no-one is saying that then! e: Actually it can be faster for some short trips, given the lack of security processing on takeoff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You seriously think a multiple thousand dollar toy that requires a lot of other expenses to get to use isn't a "rich mans toy"? Seriously not everyone is on minimum wage, and the world isn't divided into "minimum wage" and "dirty richos". e: To be at least mildly constructive, a winch-launched glider flight in Australia is about $15 per launch + 70c/minute aircraft hire. Instruction is free, but you have to pay an annual club membership. Even on our minimum wage of $17/hour, if you want it badly enough, you can afford a flight every few weeks. e: VVVV I don't own an aircraft. Most people are members of clubs or syndicates to make it affordable. My Lil Parachute fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Now which one of those planes on that "list" aren't: Incredibly, people who are not rich (but not dirt poor) can sometimes still achieve their goals by compromising on things like that. We need a "D&D: No Poors or College Students" subforum.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:Actually, the increased weight of the parachute is going to affect the plane's ability to glide. The Increased wing-load is going to increase the descent rate, reducing the distance over the ground that the plane can travel and reducing the pilot's options for finding a safe landing spot. Hi! Glider pilot here. The descent rate goes up, but so does your best glide speed. It all works out in the wash. FYI gliders are known to deliberately increase weight (with water ballast) on days with good lift because it lets them travel faster. If it reduced glide ratio you can bet they wouldn't do it. e: To me the main argument against mandatory parachutes is - there are a huge number of aircraft already out there and their design simply never allowed for such a modification. In many cases the retrofit would be prohibitively expensive - how would you add a chute to a Piper Cub? Making them mandatory in new aircraft will not save that many lives, given the existing fleet would be grandfathered in. Instead of hiding behind BS laws introduced for our own safety, I wish the wowsers would just come out and say they hate all fun (planes, jet skis, muscle cars etc) that doesn't involve hugging trees or other pissant activities. My Lil Parachute fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Because it's impossible to save up 60 grand or so for an aircraft (that you can later resell) unless you are rich, right? No way could you buy a shitter house & save (possibly pooling your cash with a few friends) for something that you're passionate about.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Not to mention, height is safety - it gives you more time to think and more places to land. Compared to a motorbike there are less things to hit in the air. e: do we have anyone with actual PIC time who is for compulsory chutes?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
ErIog posted:In terms of real content, you guys have still not managed to demonstrate your claims: 1) In Australia, the average age of the single piston-engine fleet is 30+ years. To fit a $50 camera to a wing (maybe 15 minutes work) requires engineering orders costing thousands. How, pray tell, do you think it would be affordable to retrofit hundreds of different aircraft types, many which are no longer supported by their manufacturers, with a ballistic chute which the airframe was never designed for? 2) Diamond Aircraft click have a bit of a blurb about chuts quote:some customers like the idea of having that “lifeline” whereas others would rather have the extra 130 lbs of fuel that the BRS is expected to weigh. Depending on the engine, that can work out to several hours of fuel - useful in case of a long diversion due to weather - or room to carry a life raft if traveling over-water. It could also carry survival supplies if flying in a remote area. You are the one, seemingly with no loving idea about aviation, who is nevertheless insisting on a complicated modification, economics, physics and seemingly reality be damned. You justify how the benefits outweigh the expense..
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Trent posted:Also, I keep seeing posts about how planes are all 35 years old and can't be retrofitted. SO WHAT? We don't require old cars to have airbags and ABS installed. They can get 1 mpg or less and it's fine. Really old cars don't even have all the mirrors and break lights required today! They're grandfathered in! It will also force aircraft manufacturers to do a heap of design work on models that have been basically untouched in decades. This will raise prices for new aircraft further, meaning more people will stick with aging aircraft. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this policy cost a few lives.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 10:26
|
|