Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'

h a l f b a k e r y

Almost as great as sliced bread.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:

pass:
register,

Ejector Modules

Like the cockpit section of the F - 111

(+6, -3)

[vote for,
against]

The Pilot and Co- Pilot of the F- 11 fighter sat next to each other as opposed to the normal tandem configuration of most fast jets. Part of this design included the ejection of the entire cockpit section which then deployed a parachute to bring the entire unit to earth.

I suggest that modern airliners have the upper section of their fuselage costracted out of these sections so that in the event of an emergency they are ejected in sequence from back to front possibly allowing the passengers to escape to possible safety.

This would mean fewer seats than are capable of being accommodated on the airliner and would be a retun to small cabin style enteriors as opposed to the open wide bodied cabins. And the cost of the aircraft would be bloody astronomical! But a little safety goes a long way... or something.

—	etherman, Oct 11 2004

F111 Ejection Module http://www.ejection...com/f111restore.htm
"One of the largest egress systems in existance..." [bristolz, Oct 11 2004]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.

Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee

Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/

Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)

While the machinery for actually ejecting might be far too expensive, a controlled collapse might be more feasable, with each modular section of say, 3 rows of seats having its own parachute.

—	zen_tom, Oct 11 2004

May I suggest that they not eject from the front back it would seem better to simply drop the sections or eject them but from the rear forward. I think that starting at the front will cause all sorts of turbulence problems and why should first class get all the perks?

—	2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 11 2004

not sure what a controlled collapse is exactly, could you enlighten me?

sorry 2 fries your right that's what i meant. doh!

—	etherman, Oct 11 2004

a controlled collapse might be where each module has more rigidity/structural integrity than the links between them. In the event of an unpleasant mid-air situation, the modules (still intact) separate from the rest of the plane, in a similar way you might separate a can from a six-pack, or a tear-off return slip from a credit-card application. Rather than dispersing into a cloud of random pieces, the plane breaks along the lines of least resistance, freeing and separating the modules without the need for the extra-expensive ejection systems.

—	zen_tom, Oct 11 2004

Maybe the first class section could have these ejection pods. The other seats could be moved into the belly of the plane or closer to the fuel tanks to make room...
I think all the extra complexity could cause more accidents then it saves though

—	Cubical_View, Oct 11 2004

first things first. if an airliner is going down there is a tiny chance that anyone is going to survive.

the idea about allowing the plane to disintegrate in prepared way is interesting, however, it calls for a very specific type of emergency in order for the plan to be effective.

Large modulr units which can be detached from the craft are the way to go here folks. Explosive bolts or mechanichal catapults whatever 'chuck' the unit into a clear airspace, chutes deploy, put the champagne on ice.

All of this is controlled by a big red button, one in the cockpit, one in the crew room. If your unit happens to be the one with the terrorist in it... tough.

—	etherman, Oct 11 2004

That's ridiculous. Ejector seats are used to exit the aircraft for any reason where the aircraft is deemed unrecoverable or unsafe to continue flying. The motor burn on the seats is long enough to gain altitude for a safe parachute operating height when ejecting from a low altitude.

—	bristolz, Oct 11 2004

You'd still have to be inclosed in something like etherman and zen_tom suggested. Ejecting at 35,000 feet could get a bit nippy otherwise

—	Cubical_View, Oct 11 2004

yeah plus 250+ ejctor seats going off at the same time could cause just a little (i.e fuckloads) of collisions... at speed...at 30,000 ft.

Christ even Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards couldn't get it right with just two of them and they're like... famous.

And <bristolz> is right, there are lots of reasons to eject from a plane(i.e being seated next to Robin Williams). It could even be used in the event of a plane hi- jacking leaving the hi jacker in the company of a few unfortunates rather than 200 of them. Although seeing as he'd be out of his seat (it being difficult to strike fear and terror into a crowd whilst struggling for legroom) he/she would get knocked around severely.

Oh and before I finish <phew>. Fighter aircraft are designed to be able to let the pilot eject when he is stationary on the airstrip, this would probably be unneccessary or impractical for passenger liners so such a high ejection velocity would be unneccessary.

Ok, my kids are starting to squeeze their spots in boredom, I better teach em something.

—	etherman, Oct 12 2004

great link <Bris> thanks.

—	etherman, Oct 20 2004

if the modules were removable there could also be pre loaded cargo modules that are attatched to the fuselage, then any plane could be cargo, passenger or mixed.

—	BPhilpotts, Mar 05 2005

a. Nothing Chuck Norris can't do.

b. People could pay for the extra feature.

c. Some people would pay for using it in an amusement park. (from a roller coaster)

—	pashute, May 15 2011

back: main index

business computer culture fashion food halfbakery home other product public science sport vehicle