Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Kinetic energy, crash worthiness and airbags

This thread discusses this article, kindly provided to us by its author RobertL18C.

Your average fleet sitting at your local airport are all built to crash standards from the 60’s. Because of grandfathering rules, the “old” designs are just upgraded and sold as new.

This is the 9g requirement.

FAR23 has a much higher g requirement if I remember correctly any newly built planes need to withstand 21g.

Would you want to sit in a seat of a 60’s design, or in a seat that is designed to crumple under 21g???

RobertL18C wrote:

In fact MEPs have a much higher fatality rate per accident

That’s because there is just a bit of plastic protecting the pilot. In a single you have a huge mass of metal weighing hunderds of kilos that crashes first before the pilot crashes. Where in a piston twin you’ll hit everything face-on basically. Also the speed is higher making it worse.

" In a single you have a huge mass of metal weighing hunderds of kilos that crashes first before the pilot crashes."
Unless it’s a pusher.
A landing into a 25 knot wind can be stall speed minus 25 knots.
With an airframe parachute deployed, it’ll be 25 knots, followed by dragging unless there’s a quick release.
A landing up a steep slope will give better g deceleration before you hit something solid.

Last Edited by Maoraigh at 17 Apr 18:48
Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
42 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top