None of this helps much if you have a proper crash at flying speed.
The crashworthiness of a GA plane, or actually any plane, including a 747, is roughly comparable to one of these
It has to be like that otherwise the thing would never get off the ground. Planes are built on the assumption that they fly in the air. They cannot be made so they can hit things at any real speed. And even if they were rigid enough, the humans inside could not withstand the G forces at impact. Then you have fuel spillage – no way to keep the tanks intact in say a 100G-1000G impact.
This is nothing to do with certification. It’s impossible, with current technology.
Silvaire wrote:
If you want to carry high payloads in a sturdy crash proof airframe there is no lack of options, a Piper Aztec comes to mind, carry who and whatever you like
For a 4 seater both the basic PA28-180 and the PA28-235 come to mind. Both have rather high payload, but the 235 is much faster. Also some variants of the C182 can do this job.
None of this helps much if you have a proper crash at flying speed.
True. Cars are better are quite good at 100km/h crashes (compared to an airplane) but at 150kts it probably doesn’t matter much if you crash in a car or in an airplane. A train would be good with 100 meters of crushing steel to absorb the energy.
Peter wrote:
The crashworthiness of a GA plane, or actually any plane, including a 747, is roughly comparable to one of these
I agree that no airplane will protect the occupants if hitting something hard and fixed at high flying speed, but that is only what happens in a minority of serious crashes. Serious reseach went into designing safer passenger cabins starting in the 60’s and that has saved hundreds of lives in airliner crashes.
For GA airplanes there are definitely differences between types. Piper seats were among the first to protect occupants well from vertical g’s and have probably saved many backs in crash landings. Composite cabins generally protect better than aluminum because aluminum cabins flexes and wobbles during crashes, often injuring or killing occupants. And when flying the “docile” Piper Cub, I am quite conscious of the fuel tank between me and the tree I might hit if the engine quits on short final.
The shoulder harness is quite useful. I have read a number of accident reports where not wearing one resulted in the front occupant faces becoming instrument-panel shaped.
Crashworthiness is also not catching fire in a crash – a friend of mine probably survived a severe crash 2 years ago because the fuel was not 100LL but jet fuel; that was a DA-40 diesel version. Some other people not far from here died a few weeks ago because the plane caught fire and they did not manage to get out from the back seat. The front seat occupants escaped alive. In both cases the airplane hit trees at flying speed. So crashworthiness definitely matters in GA, even if it does not match that of modern cars.
Elixir, pipistrel, tecnam have done new planes. They are usually less expensive than old metallic dinausaurs.
MedEwok wrote:
Cars have become much heavier and in turn much sturdier, safer and more capable over the last four decades. The same should have happened with aircraft, heavier, crashworthier, greater wingspan, more powerful engines and all at the same price as before. But it didn’t, because GA is a dysfunctional sector of the econom
Cars have become heavier because of market demand, a SUV is full of essential features needed for city driving 
and the penalty is not so great, especially with the right software
Planes could be lot heavier or carry more if the market demanded it but at a cost! As a thought experiment (using the lift equation) if you wished to double the weight you could :
:
1. Double the wing area, you could minimize the structural penalty by using a simple low aspect ratio wing, or you could just use two wings aka biplane. Some of the structural penalty of the larger wing could be further reduced by removing wing flaps and using a simple fixed high lift air foil.
Cruise speed however would be considerably slower, and you would probably need a modest increase in power to still maintain an acceptable climb gradient, with the extra induced drag at climb speeds.
i.e. a simple rugged design where all the available power to carry weight.
2. Double the horse power of the engine/propeller combination, and keep the same wing area, this would increase take off and approach speeds by 1.41, along with all downsides including a likely increase in training and currency requirements.
It is worth noting that for jet aircraft that typically operating at the highest altitude available where the ratio between induced drag versus the rest is greatest, that for every kg of weight the fuel required to overcome the induced drag is approx 3 – 4 percent of the said weight for each hour in the air. So for 3 hours of usable fuel your looking at 10% of that weight to carry it in the first place.
GA aircraft typically fly at much higher speed relative to max rate climb speed so the penalty for induced drag is not so great, but this would change if greater emphasis was put on carrying weight.
Of course it is not quite as simple as this. 
Ted wrote:
It is worth noting that for jet aircraft that typically operating at the highest altitude available where the ratio between induced drag versus the rest is greatest, that for every kg of weight the fuel burn is approx 3 – 4 percent per hour greater. So for 3 hours of usable fuel your looking at 10% or so for every additional kg.
That can’t be right. A single additional pax (≈90 kg) would triple the fuel burn!
Airborne_Again wrote:
That can’t be right. A single additional pax (≈90 kg) would triple the fuel burn!
3-4% of the additional weight is needed as extra fuel by weight per hour of flight i.e. 90Kg for 3hours is about 8 kg of avtur. 90Kg * .03 * 3 = 8.1kg to overcome the induced drag. (I will edit my original post to make it clearer)
These are ballpark numbers
Today, a DR400 collided with a Pioneer UL.
5 fatalities.
I am fed up with these accidents
Where? Cruise? Traffic pattern?
