This could save lives

>>57808558
>This could save lives
Who cares?

>>57808558
gee how often do planes crash and in which of these cases will it be actually useful?

seems like a huge waste of money more than anything

>>57808558

The forces exerted on the mounting clamps during flight would be immense, the extra mechanics would increase weight and reduce effective range/passenger capacity, and good luck maintaining a reliable airtight seal between the cockpit and capsule.

>>57808558

Because it wouldn't save anyone at all.

>>57808558
Landing in
>Raqqa
>Alps
>Tasman sea

The idea is nice and legit for private planes.

>>57808639

Never.

Because it is fucking stupid. Especially considering how likely you are to actually survive a plane crash.

>>57808678
I think slowing down the "capsule" is a bigger issue.

>>57808731

just install brakes on it lol you silly

>>57808739
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ReyS9i9BJg
>2016
>not surfing on clouds
What is your excuse?

>>57808558
>Why aren't we doing this, /g/?

because we're not in the Looney Tunes universe

File: 1403253576043.png (65KB, 430x463px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 430x463px

This is retarded.
>Added weight and complexity -> expensive
>planes almost never crash anyway. litterally the safest way to travel
>Can't land on hills. The cabin would roll and certainly kill anyone inside
>Most crashes occurs during takeoff and landing. The idea of hurling the cockpit and wings at the city and airport is incredibly stupid
Where can i buy one?

>>57808558
The additional parts that could and will fail will cost more lifes than they could ever save. Not to mention probably doubling the cost.

>>57808558

l m a o

anything you think you know about airplanes is bullshit, they are actually 1000x more complex

>>57808558
>1:03
>passengers land safely
>pilots die in a fiery collision with the earth
lol

File: 1366331798297.gif (502KB, 352x240px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 352x240px

>capsule deattach
>start spinning uncontrollably as it has no way to stabilize itself
>all passengers still die shaken, not stirred.
>bonus points if it lands over a school or hospital and kill more people as you have no fucking way to control where or how it will land

>>57808558
Is the point of it that it's a capsule or that it has giant parachutes? Because just dropping the capsule off will just kill the passengers -- the parachute saves the passengers.
Why not just build the giant parachutes directly into the plane and just scrap the whole capsule thing?!?

File: 20160920_202252.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>57808558

Mechanical Engineer here.

The decoupling modules on that would be complex, expensive, and very dangerous at landing and take off.

You would be better off making individual seats or sections go out the sides/bottom rather than the entire back end of the fuselage.

>>57808558
https://youtu.be/qzkZRKnB_XQ

Why not just give passengers parachutes with altimeters that auto release at a certain altitude?

>>57814005
Why not odst style drop pods

>>57808558
>Sudden change in weight and aerodynamics
>Unstable debris falling onto buildings
>Pilot fusalage has no landing gears
>Can't recover half of the plane
Because shutting down the engines and air braking is more reliable and less of a lawsuit.

File: wacky_races_by_pooterman-d8cy036.png (204KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 512x512px

>>57808558

>downward-facing boosters
>kevlar airbags along undercarriage
>even expanding foam dispensers along undercarriage

Has no one tested these things? Near the ground you could drop your forward velocity to almost 0 to limit skid damage, and you'd have a cushioning aspect to absorb some of the vertical velocity imparted by having little or no lift at the last moment.

Ejecting most of the fuselage is a shit idea because no parachute will be able to slow it down and it would be unbalanced and probably land on on end and crumple up before slamming down to lie flat with the ground.

>>57808558

nobody will ever build this for the simple reason that pilots might make the decision to detach prematurely even if the plane was maybe able to safely land somehow

>>57808558
not a single correct answer so far.

the plane would be too heavy.
due to increased fuel costs and maintenance, it would cost at least twice as much per passenger.

>>57813988
Imagine the moment when the bed triggered until bang hard.

>>57808558
how about detachable engines and fuel pods? or just better fire fire repellent systems.

>something goes wrong
>engine and fuel on fire
>eject it
>plane is now lighter
>glide your shit to safety

>>57813420
>Illitirate imbecil here

Doesn't know how to adjust useless over 8 MEGA PIXELS schweine photo to standard monitor resolution picture.

>>57808640
>not building your airplane like a rocket with staging

>>57818465

Sounds like you're triggered.

>>57808558
>this could save lives
Here's the answer

>>57808558
human life isn't worth that much resources
Also it creates much less secure construction. It would actually increase amount of incidents

>>57811028
This plus:
>Loads more points of failure. Just about all of the tech in modern planes is tried and tested, but this introduces loads of new and untried, and naturally much more failure prone, tech into the mix
>Increase in weight causes higher fuel consumption, which leads to higher costs for airlines and more pollution from burning that fuel
>Massive re-engineering of the entire plane as the main fuselage with the cabin contains pretty much all of the structure necessary to keep the wings in place along with things necessary to keep the plane aloft, including a good chunk of the fuel tanks (so it's ether going to be a plane with much shorter range or the cabin is going to land with a big fuel tank stuck to it)

All in all this is just like that lego brick phone concept from a few of years ago... Appealing to those who aren't literate in science or engineering, but an absolute shitshow for those who do.

>>57818451
>>57815392
Planes are designed with very particular weight and CG envelopes. You can't just go jettisoning this and that and expect it remain controllable. The testing and certification of these wacky ideas would be ridiculously long, expensive and I guarantee you would uncover 100 reasons against that you can't think of.

cheaper to buy insurance for businesses and kill some people

no one cares about your shitty life

File: 150204021522-vo-taiwan-transasia-crash-dash-cam-video-00000612-exlarge-169.jpg (50KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 780x438px

Planes already have wings and can glide for 100km+ without power
Most crashes take place after/before landing in which case you would be royally fucked

>>57808558
because aeroplane crashes don't happen often enough to put that much money into something

>>57808558
The goyim are merely a vessel for transporting shekels.

>he thinks a multi billion industry would even consider this

>>57813275
Why don't we just replace all seats with ejector seats? It would be incredibly dangerous, and would probably kill a few people, but so do crashes anyway.

>>57819638
My friend actually thought all commercial airliners come with parachutes for all the passengers. Im not even joking.

>>57819686
That's what I thought until I started watching air crash investigation and shit. I don't really see why they don't do that.

>>57819706
Because
People would drop out when the plane can be saved
People will die because they cant parachute
People will die because of numerous things that can happen

>>57819719
Only give them to the people when it's sure you're fucked obviously. I would guess there's a bigger chance of survival with a parachute than in a plane without control.

>>57819735
But you are never sure when you will you be fucked. When's the last time we've heard an airplane died at cruising heights? As people above said, its mostly landing or taking off.

>>57819762
>But you are never sure when you will you be fucked.
Fair enough, didn't know that.

>>57818465

>Illitirate

File: 1374346251600.gif (496KB, 500x455px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x455px

>>57808558
>flying along normally
>suddenly the cabin decides to eject
>crashes into a mountain
>everyone is dead
>pilot is fine

File: 1480711855587.jpg (162KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1462x1462px

>>57808558
>implying that /g/ would get on a plane, let alone even leave their house

>save lives
We need to end lives not save them.

Just make airplanes stronger for crash landings so that it won't rip apart. Pilots already have a consistent protocol for emergency landings, its all luck on whether the plane stays in one piece.

This shit was designed by some kid who fears flying and prob would put the life vest on whenever the plane hits turbulence

>>57815392
>Downward facing boosters
Extra mass due to fuel, reinforcements, engines etc, extra drag in flight, extra maintenance, only useful in a tiny handful of situations.

Tried once on a specially modified C-130, worked okay until the moment you fucked up the firing order in the slightest.

>>kevlar airbags along undercarriage
Less space for fuel and baggage, need to maintain filling systems, once again only useful in handful of situations.


>even expanding foam dispensers along undercarriage
What.

>>57818451
Many planes can already dump fuel. Dumping engines would massively change the CG, and now there has to be a way to safely decouple the engines, so situations like the famous DC-10 crash, that Israeli airline crash, and the cargo 747 having one engine knock another off in Alaska don't happen. An engine on fire isn't a huge deal in most situations.

>>57813988
wow, that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. You fap in bed or have sex and you're locked in a coffin... wonder how many parents will be buying those for their teenagers. Bonus points if it locks and can only be opened from the outside.

>>57808558
why the fuck would we want more people alive?

Pilot here. That shit's retarded and not worth it.