why dont they put parachutes on airplanes?

File: 05569952.jpg (33KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x375px

>>717074151
high cerosin costs = less profit
>no one cares about humans

>>717074151
Weight

because if it's going down, it's going down fast. People will panic and shit. only a few people could jump, and even they can't operate the parachute.

costs a lot

>>717074151
they only put lifejackets on the plane so it makes it easier to recover the corpses

... do you know how much training they take to use?

>>717074395
no you retard. i meant why dont they put a giant parachute on the plane that would actually let the jet itself float slowly and safely to the ground

Because your flying to Baltimore not doing a a HALO drop with the seals

1. you don't know how to use it
2. you dont know how to put it on and have n o time to do so
3. you dont jump at ca 800 kph

>>717074519
/thread
The moomins are awake

>>717074519
it does exist for small planes

>>717074607
you know how big it has to be? You know how much space and weight it will need?

>>717074151
Planes don't have arms. They cant pull the cord, dumbass

Better question:

Why don't they put parachutes on ships?

They do have some parachutes for small private planes, it just not practical on a commercial airliner.

>>717074513
>... do you know how much training they take to use?
what. you could build a module based plane. in case of emergency you can launch the modules which go down on parachutes.

why did put parachute on 9/11 tower

>>717074151
it's impossible to get out of a jet unless you have an ejection seat.

>>717074838
they could open a cargo door in the back

>>717074838
why every seat on plane not ejection seat?

>>717074513

>%100 chance of death
>%99 chance of death

If you had to pick one. which one would you want to pick?

why dont they put planes on parachutes?

File: 1480309602399.png (31KB, 688x558px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 688x558px

>>717074680

Why don't they put mattresses on planes?

>>717074988
99

>>717074519
how exactly in your mind do most plane crashes play out?

>>717074151
why dont they put swimming pools under planes.

File: f43f43.jpg (20KB, 320x320px)

20KB, 320x320px

Anyone stupid enough to get onto a flying craft deserves to die

>>717074678
Well I'd say you would need multiple parachutes, atop and rear of the aircraft.. you'd have so much weight and volume of parachute you'd have no space for anything else

>>717075416
Anyone stupid enough to risk leaving their mom's basement deserves to die.

>>717074151
It would reduce the space for overhead storage, and there is not enough of that now.

They have started doing this the past few years. The tech is still being perfected though.

>>717075338
Oh it's like an escape pod but with extra faggot..

>>717074151
it would be useless. Also in the rare case, if people would be able to leave the plane, a jump from this height would be deadly depending from the temperature, pressure etc. Most would become unconscious and not able to open the parachute.

>>717074151
It would fuck up the arodynamics

>>717075269
fire breaks out and damages vital flight control wires/equipment

run out of fuel/fuel leak

loss of hydraulics

volcanic ash clogging engines

birds

mid air collision

having a kid in the cockpit

runway debris flying up and causing a fuel leak that sets plane on fire

too many people/too much weight on plane

rudder hardover due to cold hydraulic valve malfuction

ice clogging up fuel filters

severve weather microbursts

having jet engines made by GE

>>717074151
Cirrus has the CAPS (cirrus airplane parachute system) which is standard, and most small planes can have a parachute installed.

the thing is if the airplane catches fire while in the air, the last thingyou want to do is fall slower, cus then you'll have plenty of time to barbecue before you land.

>>717075633
flawed logic

there is nothing dumber than getting onto a plane

you LITERALLY DESERVE whatever happens to you

lmao @ ur "life''''''''''''''''''''''''

File: stanleyB58ejectionseatcapsule.jpg (62KB, 512x299px)

62KB, 512x299px

>>717075742
yep but I would build them for whole seat rows.

>>717074151
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISREt4Q6XKA&t=80s

if you were actually looking for a answer you would do some research first before asking the opinions of the internet gutter people.

>>717075818
Engines made by GE
Korean airlines
Snackbars onboard
>Bailout.jpg

File: 1480280459167.jpg (91KB, 1142x1080px)

91KB, 1142x1080px

>>717076081

File: 337-SnapLeak.png (664KB, 576x942px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 576x942px

Leaking my way to 2017...try this out on any girl in your school lol snap-leak-cf

>>717074935
$$

File: airline.jpg (55KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x400px

I think we should demand a mandate to all U.S Commercial airlines to provide new safety regulations on board a plane.

I believe you should have to take a 6 month training course before you are even allowed to step foot on a plane, that way if the plane malfunctions everyone will know what to do.

>>717074519
jet engines have too much thrust for any type of cloth. The flaps, ailerons, etc act as a parachute to increase drag.
>tldr; planes literally have metal parachutes on their wings.

>>717076614
that aint gonna work with people who have business oversea and have to get there quick

>>717076614
yeah, and should have a card for passed training course to be able to board a plane

>>717074680
Laughed way too hard at this

>>717074935
extremely dangerous. the explosives used in fighter jets seats are both expensive and can cause death. furthermore, you have to remove the roof aswell. the fuselage of a plane couldnt handle so many panels, also being blown off.

>>717074739
>you could have more moving parts that could go wrong instead of a simple, efficient and secure plane

>>717076614
People need certifications to drive a car and it's still the most unsafe transportation mean out there. Better keep it simple.

>>717076811
Expedite the training process for business people with busy schedules drop the course down to 3 months but, the training course will cost extra.

>>717075818
Fires only happen on engines, they have an extinguishing system, and it also segments the plane.

a large fuel leak is a discrepancy, which would be found before flight. otherwise the plane isnt leaking unless its shot. the fuel is basicly stored in a sponge.

there are back up systems to hydraulics.

birds leave dents, not killed aircraft, also birds arent at that altitude.

mid air collision, rare but yes.

doesnt happen

fuel systems arent going to cause a fire due to a hole made by fod. in emergencies they can do a fuel dump from that section of the wing. also they check for fod.

too much weight isnt going to happen on commercial liners, weight shifting might though which could cause a crash.

ye

havent heard of that before

ye

lol

File: planepara.jpg (24KB, 634x301px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 634x301px

>>717074739
>>717074151
This literally exists already in concept, some ruskie gopnik designed it

File: planepara2.jpg (25KB, 634x288px)

25KB, 634x288px

>>717077545

Training to use parachutes is pretty hard and if we taught everyone how to use them they'd:
>need to take a long time and delay their flights if complications come up
>have to pay quite a bit to a teacher
>have to pay quite a lot to put hundrets of parachutes on an airplane
>in case of a plane actually crashing there would be fucking chaos on the plane and you'd get 3-4 people out at max

File: 361-SnapLeak.png (180KB, 240x426px)

180KB, 240x426px

Just found this amazing tool....see what celebrity you can leak lmfao snap-leak-cf

>>717074506
Woah that sad

File: 1483110107343.jpg (79KB, 1000x661px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1000x661px

what about this though?
works for asrtonauts coming back down so why not a plane?

>>717078248
I don't think this would work. planes are pretty large and bulky. That'd be a pretty tough landing even with the chute.

File: 1483110107343.jpg (107KB, 1000x661px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x661px

>>717078401
what about this?

>>717078739
mate you are a top quality artist I'll tell ya that.
maybe add more thrusters and chutes.
A couple balloons like in that Up movie would of course help.

>>717078739
holy shit. you just gave me a great idea

why dont they just use thrust vectoring like they do on fighter jets. 4 massive jet motors could surley set a plane safely on the ground if fighter jets can achieve vertical take off and landing with just one motor

>>717078739
im sure you know how to put thrusters down there

File: 1483110107343.jpg (137KB, 1000x661px)

137KB, 1000x661px

this?


also where the (you)'s at?

>>717074151
They do have parachutes for recovering light planes, a parachute for a massive airliner travelling at 600mph is a little impractical though, you know, it's more or less obvious to anyone with a triple digit IQ.

>>717074151
Funny enough, Cirrus aircraft has a system called CAPS that they put on their SR-22. It's a giant parachute you can deploy out of the top of the body in case of loss of flight controls. It's pretty cool to watch. YouTube is full of videos of deployment

File: 20161230_113312.png (1MB, 1570x1177px)

1MB, 1570x1177px

would this not work?

>>717079656
Quality shitposting m'lad

>>717076768
r u high

>>717074988
99 you retard

>>717080343
Too heavy. Needs the wings to do their job m8

>>717079656
mate it's 2016

File: 20161230_113825.png (1MB, 1570x1177px)

1MB, 1570x1177px

>>717080457
what if all 4 engines were driving a shaft connected to a fan underneath of the plane to help?

Commercial jetliners fly far too fast for people to jump from. Sudden wind would tear them apart, and rapid air pressure change would give them intense hypoxia. Theres youtube videos on the subject.

File: 0d2b03639efceb6525d47232be8c4681.jpg (123KB, 713x960px)

123KB, 713x960px

>>717081075
not if you jump out the back

>>717079656
Nice one

>>717074151
Because..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISREt4Q6XKA&app=desktop

>>717075818
You watch too much Mayday

>>717080343
There's an easy way to answer this. A 747 has an empty weight of ~375 klb. The engines on this aircraft can have 37-61 klb of thrust. Four engines means a total thrust of 244 klb. There is not enough thrust to equalize the weight of this aircraft and therefore cannot fly in a VTOL configuration.

>>717080810
This would also not work. The engines produce power, all of which is converted into thrust to move the aircraft. To drive a "fan" (propeller) some of the power that goes into providing thrust would have to go into the prop. This means the engines would provide less thrust for the aircraft.

The reason we use engines like these (turbofans) on large aircraft is because they're simply more effective- they provide a much higher power to weight ratio than what you are describing (a truboshaft engine.)

File: f35-blast.jpg (33KB, 499x367px)

33KB, 499x367px

>>717083785
wouldn't work huh?
>pic related

>>717074269
this

They should build the plane out of the same material as the black box. They alway recover the black box. It seem to be sturdy

>>717083961
You're comparing a fucking F35 to a 747. Refer to >>717083262
A 747 weighs a fucking cunt ton more than a tiny fighter jet and the engines on the fighter are going to be much more advanced than the turbofans on an airliner. If you want to figure why this works on an F35, look up its weight and the thrust of it engines. Compare those two numbers and note which one is larger.

>>717084317
If they did, that, the plane would be too heavy to fly.