It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by Kester
There's a huge sample of tube and wing crashes to study. How many of them hit wingtip first without breaking up?
dunno - I cant' acgtually find any at all for large passenger aircraft - I found this one of a small aircraft - both occupants survived.
Perhaps you could point us at this "huge sample"??
The Burnelli crash also isn't an example of an aircraft not breaking up - it is an example of the CABIN not breaking up.
Landing speeds would still be slower in this era for Burnelli aircraft due to the design.
Indeed - that is because it is piston engine powered 1930's design - pretty much every aircraft of the era has a lower landing speed than due to design!!
Here's a 1940's "tube" design cartwheeling with no fire and no casualties:
Originally posted by Kester
I've been told that low seat prices owe a lot to subsidised fuel costs. Do you have any thoughts on this? When calculating the price of mass air travel I personally have to add all the environmental costs including of course the effect on mental health caused by the almost constant distant roar of jet engines. I can hear one now.
Originally posted by RichardPrice
If the Burnelli design was cheaper and safer, then Boeing and Airbus would have had aircraft out in production decades ago - they are not driven by politics, they are driven by competitive sales and they get those by offering aircraft better at doing what the customer wants than their competitors.
Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by RichardPrice
Hi all.
"Who would be doing the subsidising?"
If I remember correctly plane fuel is not taxed,similar to red diesel and fuel for motor yachts.
So the Government is subsidising.
I wonder how much cheaper car fuel would be if all fuels carried the same tax?
Originally posted by waynos
I cant add any thoughts on subsidised fuel other than to say it would subsidised equally, regardless of aircraft type wouldn't it?
Regarding the original point I was addressing about 'familiaritty'. Here is one of several concepts under study at Airbus in an attempt to find the next big leap in commercial aircraft efficiency.
Also the lower landing and take-off speeds reduce the amount of stress on those structures making failures less common, and less catastrophic if they do occur. Besides this, the wing shaped structure is stronger then the tubes that we use for fuselages today.
Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by RichardPrice
Hi all.
"Who would be doing the subsidising?"
If I remember correctly plane fuel is not taxed,similar to red diesel and fuel for motor yachts.
So the Government is subsidising.
I wonder how much cheaper car fuel would be if all fuels carried the same tax?
www.aircrash.org...
In 1983, Professor Cantilli, of New York Polytechnic said:
"The use of Burnelli airliners would reduce air crash fatalities by 85%."
Here are some of the reasons why he made this statement. The Conventional Airliner practice of attaching engines and landing gear to fuel tank supporting structure (see diagram below) in combination with excessively high take-off and landing speeds on overstressed tires is a perfect recipe for a fiery disaster.
www.aircrash.org...
The Burnelli Lifting Body is the SAFEST type of aircraft, providing better protection for passengers and crew. Just as it is in cars, maintaining the integrity of the structure in an accident is vital. On conventional aircraft a mere 15% of the aircraft structure surrounds the passengers. On lifting body aircraft 65% of the aircraft structure surrounds passengers; thus more structure = more strength = more safety. The lifting body design has more structure around the passenger without any penalty in payload. As stated by its very name, the body/fuselage carries much of its own weight.
This is not merely theory, it has been proven. Furthermore, common sense and engineering principles will confirm that a strong fuselage which protects passengers during a crash will prevent most deaths when compared to the current alternative. A Burnelli UB-14 crash in 1935 at 130 mph proved the fact.
www.aircrash.org...
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."
Signed: Louis T. Reichers*
* Later Colonel, Chief of Engineering Section, Air Transport Command
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by RichardPrice
Hi all.
"Who would be doing the subsidising?"
If I remember correctly plane fuel is not taxed,similar to red diesel and fuel for motor yachts.
So the Government is subsidising.
so it is not actually a subsidy at all.
I wonder how much cheaper car fuel would be if all fuels carried the same tax?
In these parts the taxes on petrol are mainly a road tax that is literally used to maintain roads.
Aircraft do not pay a road tax for fairly obvious reasons!!
However they pay landing (airport) and airways (air traffic control) charges which IMO are the direct equivalent - ie paying for the infrastructure they use. IMO that is appropriate and completely comparable.
Originally posted by Kester
Does anyone have experience at building/flying model Burnelli aircraft?