Aviation technology conspiracy.

[Big Les]

For once, a non-9/11 related conspiracy site here. (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supovw.htm)

The gist is that to preserve profits in the aerospace industry, blended wing body designs, namely the obscure and flawed Burnelli designs (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1312627_ITM) have been suppressed despite supposed advantages, especially to passenger safety.

The author falls into the usual CT trap of a) assuming that governments care little for the wellbeing of their people and b) drawing spurious conclusions from photographs. The anti-establishment ranting is the usual badly reasoned illogical paranoid schtick, and comparisons of "stolen designs" are hilarious: The B-2 bomber is a BWB design means nothing, likewise the comparison of the small Burnelli aircraft with the F-15 is ridiculous; they are nothing alike.

I realise this is probably a bit "niche", but interesting nonetheless.

[Crazycowbob]

Just goes to show, you can make a CT out of just about anything!

And I love that comparison between the Burnelli fighter and F15. It just shows how little the author understands aviation, as the whole premise of the Burnelli aircraft was the lifting body (particularly visible around the engines), while the fuselage of the F15 can hardly be considered a lifting body, despite it's width, which was made so to acomodate the engine configuration. The body of the F15 lacks the shape to provide the craft with any sort of significant lift.

[Anti-sophist]

As best as I can tell the comparison holds because the F15 has two engine intakes (for it's two engines... COINCIDENCE?????) and it has two vertical stabilizers.

If they were smart, they'd have used an E-model F15, not an A or C (hard to tell which from the picture). The E-model actually made the CFT (conformal fuel tank) that attached to the body provide some lift.

[Big Les]

That's a C (overall colour, lack of "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles). They are "plumbed" for CFTs as well, but they aren't ordinarily fitted. Funnily (co-incidentally?) enough there is some tangental credence to the idea you point up; the story of an Israeli pilot bringing one home (http://www.defencetalk.com/military_videos/air_force_videos/f-15_with_only_one_wing_20061119.php) with most of one wing missing, supposedly due to the lift provided by the partially-blended wing. But the concept was/is widespread in fighter design; F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-series etc.

[rwguinn]

Just goes to show, you can make a CT out of just about anything!

And I love that comparison between the Burnelli fighter and F15. It just shows how little the author understands aviation, as the whole premise of the Burnelli aircraft was the lifting body (particularly visible around the engines), while the fuselage of the F15 can hardly be considered a lifting body, despite it's width, which was made so to acomodate the engine configuration. The body of the F15 lacks the shape to provide the craft with any sort of significant lift.
Actually, Aerodynamicysts are like other engineers. They (and we) hate to see stuff serving only 1 task. If you're gonna make me have it, it's gonna do some work for me!
You will find that a fair amount of lift for any military aircraft is generated by the fuselage. I don't have the numbers at my beck-and-call, but I think everyone would be surprised at the amouint of lift a 747 fuselage generates.

[uruk]

Actually, Aerodynamicysts are like other engineers. They (and we) hate to see stuff serving only 1 task. If you're gonna make me have it, it's gonna do some work for me!
You will find that a fair amount of lift for any military aircraft is generated by the fuselage. I don't have the numbers at my beck-and-call, but I think everyone would be surprised at the amouint of lift a 747 fuselage generates.

Check this out. An F-15 flies home with one wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7DfS-9CFI

[Zep]

Actually, Aerodynamicysts are like other engineers. They (and we) hate to see stuff serving only 1 task. If you're gonna make me have it, it's gonna do some work for me!
You will find that a fair amount of lift for any military aircraft is generated by the fuselage. I don't have the numbers at my beck-and-call, but I think everyone would be surprised at the amouint of lift a 747 fuselage generates.My brother, who is an airframe engineer on them, told me that the nose/fuselage generates about 20% to 25% of the overall lifting force for a 747. Hence the slight nose-up attitude in level flight.

[rwguinn]

My brother, who is an airframe engineer on them, told me that the nose/fuselage generates about 20% to 25% of the overall lifting force for a 747. Hence the slight nose-up attitude in level flight.
That number is actually reasonable. I can bleeve it!

[CurtC]

If you read the test pilot's report of the crash of that Burnelli UB-14 (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/ub14crsh.htm) (from 1935!), it doesn't pass the sniff test:The indicated air speed was 195 m.p.h. at the time it became essential for me to make a crash landing (Through maintenance neglect which caused control system failure). I flew the ship into the ground from about 200 ft. altitude and estimate the speed of contact at about 130 m.p.h. the right wing being nearly vertical and absorbing the first shock. This impact caused the airplane to cart wheel tearing off the engines and crashing the wings and tail group with the body tumbling through remained intact and no fuel leaked from the wing tanks.

It is my firm belief that the fact that the box-body strength of this type combined with the engines forward and the landing gear retracted saved myself and the engineer crew and had the cabin been fully occupied with passengers with safety belts properly attached, no passengers would have been injured.

This crash landing, in my opinion, is an extraordinary example of the crash safety that can be provided by the lifting body type of design.

[R.Mackey]

My brother, who is an airframe engineer on them, told me that the nose/fuselage generates about 20% to 25% of the overall lifting force for a 747. Hence the slight nose-up attitude in level flight.
Slight nose-up attitude (say two degrees) is typical for all aircraft, and has nothing to do with body lift. It's because most wings are set up to lift optimally with a slight angle of attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack). If the nose was giving you preferential lift, that would give you some pitch moment on the aircraft, and you'd actually angle the aircraft down slightly in order to compensate for it.

Contrary to popular belief, a flat plate makes a pretty decent wing, provided you give it some angle of attack. The most important feature of a wing is the sharpness of its trailing edge. Without that, airflow can sneak from underneath around the back, separating the flow on top, and that spoils all of your lift. Wings are shaped the way they are to give you more efficiency, more stability, or controllability over a wider range of conditions (such as angle of attack). But as anyone who's ever built a paper airplane knows, a flat wing works fine -- so long as there's some angle of attack. Otherwise, you have what is known as a "dart." :D

-----

Regarding the OP, I think I've actually met some of those guys. Eons ago when I was at Caltech in the Aero department, every once in a while some folks I didn't recognize would crash our weekly seminars. Sat next to one of them once, and he had a stack of glossy papers loaded with interesting, yet impractical, design ideas for commercial aircraft. The one I recall for sure looked like your standard 737, but with two fuselages, side by side... kind of like an enormous commercial Twin Mustang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-82_Twin_Mustang).

Anyway, he brought up some of his wacky design ideas, challenging the presenter, and was quickly "suppressed" by the gathered luminaries of GALCIT. Quite pathetic to behold, really.

I also wonder if those poor deluded souls think these cute little buggers (http://www.astronautix.com/gallery/pnagbody.htm) were ripoffs of their genius, or suppressed by the Boeings and Airbuses of the world...

There's lots of bizarre aircraft ideas out there. A book I recommend for its humour potential, a sort of collected works of engineering case-studies gone berzerk, is The World's Worst Aircraft (http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Worst-Aircraft-Bill-Yenne/dp/0880294906/sr=8-2/qid=1169010527/ref=sr_1_2/105-3632100-3686851?ie=UTF8&s=books), containing quite a few ideas put to prototype that simply didn't work.

It's awfully hard to let go of an idea sometimes.

[jaydeehess]

Funnily (co-incidentally?) enough there is some tangental credence to the idea you point up; the story of an Israeli pilot bringing one home with most of one wing missing, supposedly due to the lift provided by the partially-blended wing

I seem to recall several ocasions where an A-10 had much of its wing shot off and still made it back to base.

I really don't think an A-10 qualifies as a Burnelli type craft does it?

As far as comparing to an F-15 when illustrating a lifting body design, wouldn't a SR-71 be a better choice?

[mailman]

As best as I can tell the comparison holds because the F15 has two engine intakes (for it's two engines... COINCIDENCE?????) and it has two vertical stabilizers.

Of course there is some coincidence BUT what it shows is that two seperate development teams when faced by the same aerodynamic challenges came up with similar designs to over come those challenges.

There was also the same accusations being thrown around about the design of the Su27 when compared to the F15. A number of people were accusing the Soviets of stealing F15 design documents when in reality it was just two teams coming up with similar designs to overcome the same challenges.

Actually the last quote on the first page has all the hallmarks of a 9/11 conspiracist cnut quote. The plane hasnt "merely run off the runway". Its farken travelled down a ditch and across a large span and then hit a bank on the other side! That isnt "merely running off the runway"!!!


You know sometimes a train entering a tunnel is just a train entering a tunnel! :)

Mailman

[R.Mackey]

Of course there is some coincidence BUT what it shows is that two seperate development teams when faced by the same aerodynamic challenges came up with similar designs to over come those challenges.
Actually, that's unlikely. The F-15 Eagle was designed according to a specific set of requirements. That Burnelli bird from 1947, that they claim was "the same design," couldn't possibly have been designed to the same spec, since in 1947 the concept of Mach 2+ heavy air superiority fighters wasn't even viable.

In contrast, the Su-27 was intended for the same environment as the F-15, so naturally its design is similar in many aspects.

The Burnelli, on the other hand, is visibly different from the F-15 in many key areas, so much so that it is obvious from that single artist's picture. The engines, mounted wide, will greatly increase the roll inertia of the aircraft, limiting roll rate, a critical factor for a dogfighter. The inlet geometry of those engines is unfavorable for supersonic flight. The boom horizontal stabilizer, due to its placement inboard and attachments to the vertical stabilizers, causes several problems -- it will limit its effective elevator area and inibit high-speed turns, it may be too close to the axis of travel to work at supersonic speeds, it will interfere with the rudders, and it makes the control surfaces as a whole more susceptible to battle damage. The cockpit location will preclude target illumination radar, although to be fair this was completely over the horizon for fighters in 1947. And on and on...

The F-15 is really not limited by lift. Consider the F-15E, which carries a payload roughly four times that of the original air-to-air only F-15A, and carries it well. There's tons of margin in the design. One of the design requirements was the ability to lose 30% of its wing structures and still return home, if I recall correctly, something the Israeli one-winger verified nicely...

As others remarked, if you want to see a strong airplane, look at the A-10. Not a Burnelli feature in it, aside perhaps from mounting the engines above the fuselage -- done so because in attack profile, the engines are hidden behind the wings from an enemy, and their exhaust is masked by the tail, not for the reasons Burnelli proposed.

What we ought to do is look up Burnelli's actual patent to see just how vague his claims really were. There's a huge range of things claimed by that website, and I imagine that won't be borne out by the patent's text.

[beachnut]

The F-15 pilot had to fly the plane at 250 KIAS to keep it under control. All pilots are trained to test their damaged aircraft at a safe altitude before staying with it. You figure out you min speed for control and then stay above it. That means if you are rolling to the right and you get to full left stick you stay above that speed because you have no more control. He must of got a good feel that he could maintain control near 250 KIAS or around 230; added 5 for the wife and 5 for each kid.

So this guy was landing at 100 KIAS over his normal landing speed or he would loose control. His engines alone could save him; push them up and you are going the direction you are pointed.

He did a good job; saw a photo in 1991; first time for the video; good job.

That Mr. Burnelli aircraft in 1941 would have a few problems as did all early fighters with jet engines; fires! I am not so sure the thing would hold together with the lack of modern materials. I do not see how it is anything like the F-15. Not even like a B-2; the first flying wing was too unstable to fly in the early days; the B-2 requires computer flight controls to maintain stability.

Look at the planes; not close. Engines; tails; elevators. Not even close.

[Big Les]

Check this out. An F-15 flies home with one wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7DfS-9CFI

*Ahem* - did you read my post, #4, above? :)

[JonnyFive]

Maybe I just don't "get" the CT mindset, but how would suppressing this somehow help the aerospace industry? I would think that, given a superior design, every company would be rushing to design planes based on it and improve upon them in order to get more customers.

Even if this guy is claiming the Burnelli design is protected under patent and the Evil People wanted to avoid paying for it, a patent is only good for 17 years in the US and would've long since expired. Anyone could copy this design that he claims is so amazing, and they'd get additional business for building safer airplanes.

I don't know jack dingle about aircraft design, but the whole premise of this conspiracy theory, and by extension the theory itself, makes no sense!

Too bad we won't be seeing any defenders of this theory around here anytime soon, because I'd really love to hear what economic incentive they feel exists for suppressing this AMAZING DESIGN THAT HAS NO FLAWS or whatever it is.

[R.Mackey]

What's more interesting is how it was also suppressed in the USSR during the Cold War...

[JonnyFive]

What's more interesting is how it was also suppressed in the USSR during the Cold War...

Maybe the so-called "Cold War" was all just part of the global NWO/aerospace industry plot.

Or something.

[jaydeehess]

Maybe the so-called "Cold War" was all just part of the global NWO/aerospace industry plot.

Or something.


well D'uh, didn't you read the memo?:)

[JonnyFive]

well D'uh, didn't you read the memo?:)

Reading? That wasn't part of the deal!

[CurtC]

Maybe I just don't "get" the CT mindset, but how would suppressing this somehow help the aerospace industry? I would think that, given a superior design, every company would be rushing to design planes based on it and improve upon them in order to get more customers.Maybe they're the same idiots who are suppressing the 200 mpg carburetor?

[JonnyFive]

Maybe they're the same idiots who are suppressing the 200 mpg carburetor?

Yeah, I'd love to be the moron who was sitting on that instead of making billions on fuel-efficient Cadillacs and SUVs. Does that kind of thinking make sense to anyone?

It's a conspiracy of the stupid, apparently.

Isn't there some rumor of a water-powered engine that was kept secret because the evil oil companies wanted to keep selling lots of gasoline?

If this is all true, why haven't hybrid cars and increasingly fuel-efficient engines been suppressed?

[Big Les]

This one would be ludicrous to most casual readers, simply because it's so obscure. But you'd be surprised how many otherwise intelligent people would buy the whole shebang if you replaced "Burnelli" with "electric car" and "aviation industry" with "automotive industry". People are so suspicious and dissatisfied with the US government (and others), they are willing to casually buy into any old rubbish, as long as those deceitful politicians "coulda" been responsible. And they won't bother to think critically or to think through the implications of what they're lending tacit support to. Same goes for 9/11 (topically) and to a lesser extent any other anti-authority CT going. Most will dress up their support in a humourous way, to appear non-committal and cover their arses in the event someone debunks them. But they would love it to be true, so they say "it wouldn't surprise me", and leave it at that.

Such people are the bread and butter of street pollsters.

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
I also wonder if those poor deluded souls think these cute little buggers (http://www.astronautix.com/gallery/pnagbody.htm) were ripoffs of their genius, or suppressed by the Boeings and Airbuses of the world...


I'm pretty sure I saw the M2 being built over at Gus Briegleb's place in El Mirage. Walked into a hangar, and Gus was welding up what had to be the lowest-aspect ratio glider I'd ever seen. I was told it was secret, and to keep my mouth shut. I have, til now.

[mailman]

Actually, that's unlikely. The F-15 Eagle was designed according to a specific set of requirements. That Burnelli bird from 1947, that they claim was "the same design," couldn't possibly have been designed to the same spec, since in 1947 the concept of Mach 2+ heavy air superiority fighters wasn't even viable.

In contrast, the Su-27 was intended for the same environment as the F-15, so naturally its design is similar in many aspects.

Hmmmmmm, I think you are saying the same thing as what I said. The F15 and Su27 were to operate in similar environments doing similar jobs (air superiority) hence why the two different design teams came up with similar answers to over come the challenges the faced.

BTW, I did some simulation work on the Su27 for a Russian company a couple years ago...VERY interesting work indeed :)

Regards

Mailman

[Loss Leader]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?

[rwguinn]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?
So, how is that "Supressed"?
You know about it, I know about it, there are reports out there, Mythbusters mentioned it...

[ponderingturtle]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?

If people would not fly on your planes think of all the lives you will save by having empty planes be the ones that crash. Genius.

At least from a stafety standpoint. No one flies, no one dies in plane crashes.

I would like to see your evidence for 1) myself as well.

But if the automotive industry did not build cars that went over 20 mph think of all the lives that could also be saved? It must be a conspiracy.

[Loss Leader]

So, how is that "Supressed"?
You know about it, I know about it, there are reports out there, Mythbusters mentioned it...

Well, that's why I put it in quotation marks.

I think it is "supressed" only insofar as the general public really has not had a chance to weigh the advantages/disadvantages and make their opinions known. It's just assumed that people would dislike the idea.

[Loss Leader]

If people would not fly on your planes think of all the lives you will save by having empty planes be the ones that crash. Genius.

At least from a stafety standpoint. No one flies, no one dies in plane crashes.

I would like to see your evidence for 1) myself as well.

But if the automotive industry did not build cars that went over 20 mph think of all the lives that could also be saved? It must be a conspiracy.

Not flying and not traveling over 20 mph have costs to the consumer. Installing airplane seats backwards costs next to nothing: it is as expensive to install a seat forwards as it is backwards; it costs passengers nothing to sit backwards as they get to the same place at the same time for the same amount of money.

Why should a simple fix that has basically no cost whatsoever not be implemented?

Should seatbelts be removed from cars because they increase the price of the car slightly? Should sneeze guards be removed from salad bars because there is a cost for the plexiglass?

Honestly, the cost/benefit analysis is nowhere near as simple as your sarcastic post implies.

[rwguinn]

Well, that's why I put it in quotation marks.

I think it is "supressed" only insofar as the general public really has not had a chance to weigh the advantages/disadvantages and make their opinions known. It's just assumed that people would dislike the idea.

Actually [anecdote mode] many people, including myself, have motion sickness problems when not facing the direction of travel. Arriving at my destination dehydrated and smellier than ususal might be off-piutting [/anecdote mode]

[CurtC]

2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.I like it. When I fly on Southwest Airlines, their seats at the front of the cabin face backwards (with their backs to the front wall, facing the passengers sitting in the second row). These seats are quite often empty, so I can come on late, sit backwards for an hour or so, then be among the first off the plane at my destination.

Of course, the whole reason my scheme works is that the majority of people don't want to face backwards.

[ponderingturtle]

Not flying and not traveling over 20 mph have costs to the consumer. Installing airplane seats backwards costs next to nothing: it is as expensive to install a seat forwards as it is backwards; it costs passengers nothing to sit backwards as they get to the same place at the same time for the same amount of money.

Why should a simple fix that has basically no cost whatsoever not be implemented?

Because they give people peice of mind by going forward, and people are willing to accept the increased risk for the peice of mind. You could make a similar arguement about all the seats in a car except the drivers being backward as well.

Should seatbelts be removed from cars because they increase the price of the car slightly? Should sneeze guards be removed from salad bars because there is a cost for the plexiglass?
To increase safety they should put sneeze guards between all diners as well at the tables. After all it is such a margional cost for the plexiglass relative to the safety improvement.

Honestly, the cost/benefit analysis is nowhere near as simple as your sarcastic post implies.

Your problem is you are only assessing monitary costs. If an airline(they decide on the seats after all not the manufacturers) installed seats backwards they would lose most of their business. So there is a definite ecconomic cost to them, namely they go out of business. You are simply being dishonnest about what has an ecconomic cost.

[Loss Leader]

Your problem is you are only assessing monitary costs. If an airline(they decide on the seats after all not the manufacturers) installed seats backwards they would lose most of their business. So there is a definite ecconomic cost to them, namely they go out of business. You are simply being dishonnest about what has an ecconomic cost.

Not at all. What year do you think seatbelts were first invented?

For decades, they were available but automobile manufacturers refused to install them in their cars. The manufacturers argued that cars with seatbelts would be seen as inherently unsafe and people would not buy their cars. There was a simple fix: the government made seatbelts mandatory. Everyone had to install them, nobody lost market share and the public was safer.

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

[JonnyFive]

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

Exactly how much benefit does having the seats face backwards convey, anyway? Is there any kind of data or any studies available?

I've seen the MythBusters thing, but I'd be interested in something more exhaustive.

[rwguinn]

Not at all. What year do you think seatbelts were first invented?

For decades, they were available but automobile manufacturers refused to install them in their cars. The manufacturers argued that cars with seatbelts would be seen as inherently unsafe and people would not buy their cars. There was a simple fix: the government made seatbelts mandatory. Everyone had to install them, nobody lost market share and the public was safer.

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.


Yeah, that's what we need.
The government dictating how we live and die simply because some do-goder thinks he knows best for the rest of us, moreso than the people who actually study this stuff.
The benefits are marginal, and would be likely effective for low velocity, low angle impacts,i.e., run off the runway type of incidents.
Fire is by far the biggest problem in any aircraft incident.
Dadgummed lawyers!:confused:

[Loss Leader]

Exactly how much benefit does having the seats face backwards convey, anyway? Is there any kind of data or any studies available?

I've seen the MythBusters thing, but I'd be interested in something more exhaustive.

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.

[rwguinn]

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.
That sounds exactly like a CTer, if you stand back and look at it.
I absolutely destest the layman "It's for your own good" that comes from the "daddy knows best" folks who bring you the "I used the hair dryer in the shower and it nearly killed me" lawsuit

[JonnyFive]

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.

I agree. If it has a potential benefit, it's probably worth examining, if nothing else. I would add, though, that market forces often do push companies towards safety innovation. Automobiles are required to have a certain baseline level of safety, but car companies add additional features because it sets their car above the rest, and many people are fanatical about keeping themselves safe.

I like the multiple airbags and excellent seatbelts in my car. They reduce the chance of me dying horribly in the unlikely event of a catastrophic crash. I paid a little extra for that safety, but to me that was worth the cost.

It's probably a conspiracy by the car companies... they just want to keep me alive so I can buy more cars!

[mailman]

That sounds exactly like a CTer, if you stand back and look at it.
I absolutely destest the layman "It's for your own good" that comes from the "daddy knows best" folks who bring you the "I used the hair dryer in the shower and it nearly killed me" lawsuit

Hmmmm, I think you have got it wrong. Your last post is what I would expect from a 9/11 conspiracist cnut, "if its the government telling us to do something, it must be a cover up!".

Regards

Mailman

[rwguinn]

Hmmmm, I think you have got it wrong. Your last post is what I would expect from a 9/11 conspiracist cnut, "if its the government telling us to do something, it must be a cover up!".

Regards

Mailman
Nope-
A lawyer describing the physics (which he is not necessarily competent to do) and cherry-picking a study out of many, saying this is good science, and that the g'bmt won't make 'em fix it implies a cover-up and collusion amongst the eeviil gubment, the airlines, and Boeing/Airbus.
I am not a lawyer, and not going to argue legal issues--but I know from experience that the "tests" required to demonstrate crashworthyness for some vehicles are simply make-work, feel-good stuff that has no basis in reality.

[Loss Leader]

Nope-
A lawyer describing the physics (which he is not necessarily competent to do)

I didn't do this. I only said that there was evidence that seating people backwards might save lives.

and cherry-picking a study out of many, saying this is good science,

I didn't do this. I never vouched for the validity of any study. I only said that evidence existed.

and that the g'bmt won't make 'em fix it

I didn't do this. I said that it is properly the government's responsibility to impose safety regulations when market forces might not bring them about on their own.

implies a cover-up and collusion amongst the eeviil gubment, the airlines, and Boeing/Airbus.

I didn't do this. I only mentioned that there was something cheap that could save lives that deserved more public attention.

I am not a lawyer, and not going to argue legal issues--but I know from experience that the "tests" required to demonstrate crashworthyness for some vehicles are simply make-work, feel-good stuff that has no basis in reality.

This is a non-sequitor that has nothing to do with my point.

[H'ethetheth]

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.In the case of this example, I suspect that the reason for conservatism is not necessarily the costs of physically changing the seats. I think it has much more to do with the fear that passengers will not like travelling backward as much, which might cost a lot of passengers if not all manufacturers implement it.

In the case of blended wing-body aircraft and such, conservatism is partly rooted in the fact that these thing cost a lot of R&D, and factories will have to be retooled completely. This is a major investment, especially if the jigs etc. are so different from the jigs used for the planes they used to make. Add to that that profit margins are generally fairly narrow in the aerospace industry and there's you're problem.

[ponderingturtle]

Not at all. What year do you think seatbelts were first invented?

For decades, they were available but automobile manufacturers refused to install them in their cars. The manufacturers argued that cars with seatbelts would be seen as inherently unsafe and people would not buy their cars. There was a simple fix: the government made seatbelts mandatory. Everyone had to install them, nobody lost market share and the public was safer.

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

And we need sneeze guards at all tables in resturants as well.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. If it has a potential benefit, it's probably worth examining, if nothing else. I would add, though, that market forces often do push companies towards safety innovation. Automobiles are required to have a certain baseline level of safety, but car companies add additional features because it sets their car above the rest, and many people are fanatical about keeping themselves safe.

I like the multiple airbags and excellent seatbelts in my car. They reduce the chance of me dying horribly in the unlikely event of a catastrophic crash. I paid a little extra for that safety, but to me that was worth the cost.

It's probably a conspiracy by the car companies... they just want to keep me alive so I can buy more cars!

Exactly safety sells cars now, so any arguement that safety will hurt sales is now very untrue.

[JonnyFive]

Exactly safety sells cars now, so any arguement that safety will hurt sales is now very untrue.

Unless, of course, the safety features cost so much that they put a given car out of everyone's price range. But the range of automotive safety features available at a reasonable cost is quite broad, and growing every day.

After all, not too long ago cars didn't even have over-the-shoulder restraints. There's some ad for the old Ford something-or-other (I think it's the Falcon) that advertises its padded dashboard.

You know, so you don't hurt your head too much when you jackknife in a crash.

Plus there's usually a luxury segment that, among other things, wants the latest in safety gizmos.

Like padded dashboards.

[rwguinn]

I didn't do this. I only said that there was evidence that seating people backwards might save lives.



I didn't do this. I never vouched for the validity of any study. I only said that evidence existed.



I didn't do this. I said that it is properly the government's responsibility to impose safety regulations when market forces might not bring them about on their own.



I didn't do this. I only mentioned that there was something cheap that could save lives that deserved more public attention.



This is a non-sequitor that has nothing to do with my point.

Truce, Dood?

I get frustrated when people are trying to do me good. I run up against stupid government intervention in my work all the time--the cost of Engineering insurance has driven me to have to work for somebody, rather than be on my own. Protecting peple from their own stupidity is a futile endeavor....The problem with idiot-proofing something is that they eep coming up with a higher grade idiot"
I promise not to try things in court. I am considered to be one of the most trying people , however.
My last point was actually in response to the "should be investigated" spoint.
We can study things to death--and often do--so as to get answers we want.
Governments are especially good at this. (Although mostly on the local level (below the radar)). What I term as "Liberals" are also good at this. It's called cherry-picking data.
I can design a physical test to give you the answer you want. It's simple if you know the science. It won't pay to have people scrutinize it too closely, though, as Consumer Reports discovered with the baby seats thing this week.

[ponderingturtle]

Unless, of course, the safety features cost so much that they put a given car out of everyone's price range. But the range of automotive safety features available at a reasonable cost is quite broad, and growing every day.

But any particular safety feature gets more and more common over time. I have heard about talk of mandating stability control systems and the like.

After all, not too long ago cars didn't even have over-the-shoulder restraints. There's some ad for the old Ford something-or-other (I think it's the Falcon) that advertises its padded dashboard.

You know, so you don't hurt your head too much when you jackknife in a crash.

Plus there's usually a luxury segment that, among other things, wants the latest in safety gizmos.

Like padded dashboards.

Nonsense, it is all about having the most airbags now, and ... Control Systems.

[JonnyFive]

But any particular safety feature gets more and more common over time. I have heard about talk of mandating stability control systems and the like.

That's true, especially because it gets cheaper as it's produced in greater quantities and more efficiently.

Electronic stability control (ESC) is a great invention, I love having it, especially in the rain. It beats a padded dashboard any day. :)

Nonsense, it is all about having the most airbags now, and ... Control Systems.

Control systems kick ass.

[Chedda]

http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/kalmd80.jpg

Yep, merely running off the runway.....

....oh, and then slamming into an embankment!

Flight 1533 departed Seoul at 10:55 for a flight to Pohang. Weather at Pohang was poor: poor visibility and gusty 25 knots wind. The first attempt to land, at 11:40, failed. After the seconds approach the plane touched down, but overran the runway. The MD-83 skidded through 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and came to rest against an embankment, broken in two.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990315-0&lang=en

[rwguinn]

http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/kalmd80.jpg

Yep, merely running off the runway.....

....oh, and then slamming into an embankment!



http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990315-0&lang=en
And your point is?

[Chedda]

And your point is?

Apologies for not making my post clearer.

The author of the website in this discussion (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supovw.htm), is making a case for improved safety and reduced fatalities using a Burnelli, as opposed to a conventional passenger airplane design. This may very well be true, although I have not seen any compelling evidence.

What I do object to, however, is the author misrepresenting photographs to support his claim. He claimed this plane "merely ran off the end of the runway", ignoring the impact of 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and an embankment.

Also, there was not one fatality in this crash. Ironically, I would imagine the situation may have been worse if the fuselage hadn't broken in two. A very poor example to use.

[rwguinn]

Apologies for not making my post clearer.

The author of the website in this discussion (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supovw.htm), is making a case for improved safety and reduced fatalities using a Burnelli, as opposed to a conventional passenger airplane design. This may very well be true, although I have not seen any compelling evidence.

What I do object to, however, is the author misrepresenting photographs to support his claim. He claimed this plane "merely ran off the end of the runway", ignoring the impact of 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and an embankment.

Also, there was not one fatality in this crash. Ironically, I would imagine the situation may have been worse if the fuselage hadn't broken in two. A very poor example to use.
I had hoped that that was your point, but I couldn't ASS-U-ME it for you, given the track record of newbies here...:D.
Yeah. Totally unsafe, no fatalities, and apparently no life-threatening injuries (serious injuries are usually mentioned in reports).
Didn't even look like much of a fire...