• perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    18 days ago

    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.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      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.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 days ago

        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.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Whole airframe parachutes are a thing on small aircraft, and I’m certain this would be easier to do than a detachable cabin.