Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Sylink
Apr 17, 2004

Is there a reason small plane engines still have carbs vs being fuel injected? I'm guessing it has to do with power.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sylink
Apr 17, 2004

Yah all the tiny Cessna's seem to be ancient as gently caress. I have a private license and learned on them. Even the newer ones they had with the glass cockpits were still the same old poo poo engine wise.

Sylink
Apr 17, 2004

azflyboy posted:

The physics involved make fitting a parachute to an airliner pretty much impossible.

The system Cirrus uses has to be deployed below about 140 knots, in an airplane that weighs no more than 3600 lbs. Even a small airliner is going to weigh somewhere between 40 and 60,000 lbs, and will be flying in excess 250kts for much of a given flight. Doubling the speed of an object means it has four times more energy to bleed off (to say nothing of the fact that the airliner weighs at least 10 times more than the Cirrus), so a parachute that could safely decelerate even a small airliner from anything faster than approach speed would have to be massively heavy and complex, and there are very few situations where it would be of any use.

When you scale up to something like a 747 (which can weigh over 900,000 lbs on takeoff), an airframe parachute becomes basically impossible, unless you want to start jettisoning things like the wings and tail while deploying the parachutes, which opens up a bunch of other avenues for things to go catastrophically wrong.

I remember seeing some proposal years ago to have the passenger section basically blow out during an emergency and then turn into a flying can with parachutes on it. I can't find any record of that anywhere though so maybe I'm making things up.

But again most of those accidents are during takeoff/landing not altitude so what does it matter? What you really need are retrorockets :jeb:

Sylink
Apr 17, 2004

Hypothetically, would some kind of auto-pilot system that would take over in an emergency and auto-land be safer than a parachute and lighter?

I can imagine a scenario where a computer can do the aerodynamic calculations to land in a situation where human error makes this impossible.

  • Locked thread