A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Glider Cockpit Safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 10th 18, 12:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 13.08.08 UTC+3 waremark kirjoitti:
Is there any aircraft which has room for a ballistic shute and an engine aft of the cockpit? I think it is the popularity of engines which has prevented more widespread fitment of ballistic chutes.


GP 14/15E has a tiny fuselage that likely has less wetted area than any other glider fuselage. It has room for both chute and engine.
  #22  
Old September 10th 18, 02:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Auxvache
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

Thanks, Ross--very interesting. Spent yesterday reading about f1 cockpit design, about which I was clearly ignorant, other than being amazed at how well drivers are protected. Hadn't realized the tub was part of the car's structure. Or so heavy.

And yes--whole different impact profiles to consider.

The DG link was also a great read--thanks for sharing.
  #23  
Old September 10th 18, 02:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

Only 15 m/s? That seems very slow considering the speeds in F1.
  #24  
Old September 10th 18, 02:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

Chris,
Ballistic chutes have been successfully deployed as low as 300 feet and BRS claims 386 lives saved, so far! Deployment requires 35 pound pull on the "little red handle", which fires the rocket hooked to a long sleeve with the parachute inside. Rocket and sleeve completely separate, leaving chute with a slider ring up near the fabric. Chute only partially fills at first, then the slider drops and allowes full deployment..........thus preventing chute failure from high speed deployment. My BRS 1050 system is good for 1050 G/W and 130mph at deployment.
JJ
  #25  
Old September 10th 18, 08:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:45:05 PM UTC+1, Andor Holtsmark wrote:
At 15:18 09 September 2018, Kevin Christner wrote:
"But I also wonder whether, as a community, we should be applying pressure
to manufacturers to focus more on safety, rather than finding that last
.01% of performance, in their new glider designs. I've watched a lot of
Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More
often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety
designs?"

Dear Mr. Christner,
this has already been done.
Two directions of research came together in the design of the Antares
crash-cockpit.

First of all, the sailplane crash-cockpit research performed by TÃœV
Rheinland and Prof. Röger of FH Achen was utilized.
TÃœV Rheinland had crash-tested 4 cockpits, each time improving the next
cockpit based upon what had been learned from the previous test. Lange then
hired these experts to design a 5th cockpit; the cockpit of the Antares.

Secondly, a Formula 1 crash cockpit designer was brought in to provide
additional expertize on crash cockpit design. This designer had, so far in
his career, crashed some 150 F1 crash cockpits, and so he could provide
exact data for how composite structures behave in a crash situation.

The resulting Antares crash-cockpit design was one that all involved
parties take pride in. Its crash worthiness exceeds the latest CS22
requirements by far. In many ways, it IS a Formula 1 cockpit. However,
there are some differences:

1: Whereas the cockpit was lengthened to make room for an energy absorbing
nose-cone, this could not be built as long and straight as that of a F1
racecar. As a result, the energy absorbing failure mechanism of the
composite had to be modified to accommodate for this.

2: Compared to F1 designs of that period, the Antares cockpit does not use
Kevlar or interwoven Carbon-Kevlar. These materials suffer from various
problems, amongst others, with the resin-fiber interface, and their
utilization proved not suitable for the load-cases that a sailplane cockpit
sees.
For more information see:

https://www.lange-aviation.com/en/pr...0e/sicherheit/

As things stand, the question therefore remains whether, as a community, we
should be applying pressure to glider-pilots to focus more on safety, as
well as finding that last .01% of performance, in their new glider
purchases
Disclosu I am an employee at Lange. However, In this post I represent
myself.


Andor, I am curious about how far the Antares crashworthiness figures exceed current CS 22?

For reference CS 22 Amendment 1 requirements a

(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of escaping serious injury in a crash landing when proper use is made of belts and harnesses provided for in the design, in the following conditions:

(1) The occupant experiences, separately, ultimate inertia forces corresponding to the accelerations shown in the following:

Upward - 7·5 g
Forward - 15·0 g
Sideward - 6·0 g
Downward - 9·0 g

(2) An ultimate load of 6 9 times the weight of the sailplane acting rearwards
and upwards at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal axis of the sailplane and sideward at an angle of 5° acts on the forward portion of the fuselage at the foremost point(s) suitable for the application of such a load a suitable point not behind the pedals.
  #26  
Old September 10th 18, 09:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andor Holtsmark[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

At 19:29 10 September 2018, wrote:
Andor, I am curious about how far the Antares crashworthiness figures
excee=
d current CS 22?

For reference CS 22 Amendment 1 requirements a

(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable
c=
hance of escaping serious injury in a crash landing when proper use is
made=
of belts and harnesses provided for in the design, in the following
condit=
ions:

(1) The occupant experiences, separately, ultimate inertia forces
correspon=
ding to the accelerations shown in the following:

Upward - 7=C2=B75 g
Forward - 15=C2=B70 g
Sideward - 6=C2=B70 g
Downward - 9=C2=B70 g

(2) An ultimate load of 6 9 times the weight of the sailplane acting
rearwa=
rds
and upwards at an angle of 45=C2=B0 to the longitudinal axis of the
sailpla=
ne and sideward at an angle of 5=C2=B0 acts on the forward portion of the
f=
uselage at the foremost point(s) suitable for the application of such a
loa=
d a suitable point not behind the pedals.


Writing from home, I do not have hard numbers at hand, but I believe the
cockpit is designed for approximately 34 g forward.
Beyond this point, you are likely not to survive the shock even if the
cockpit holds.

We had one cockpit that saw in excess of 27 g in real life. however, the
load-case did not conform to CS22.

Luckily, the Antares passive safety has so far prevented a real test of
ultimate active safety / survivability from having to take place (touching
wood).

One thing that is worth to mention is that getting the gear out can
significantly improve your chances if things get iffy. Those few
centimeters of added deceleration can do wonders for reducing peak vertical
g-forces.
Ripping out the gear backwards can also dissipate a lot of energy.

Again Posting as a private person with a passion for flight.



  #27  
Old September 11th 18, 12:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 7:25:49 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Everything Mark said, however the F1 crashing into the wall most often
hits it with a glancing blow allowing parts to shed whereas the glider
quite often hits the ground head on.Â* I wonder how survivable an F1
crash directly into the wall at 200 mph would be...

On 9/9/2018 10:04 AM, wrote:
I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.
What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

The primary factor that imparts superior crashworthiness to F1 and Indy cars is the suspension and wings that are sheared away during impact. As components are peeled off, energy is expended and deceleration happens over a longer period of time. By the time the "tub" surrounding the driver's cockpit is next in line for a pounding, the deceleration that has already taken place reduces the energy imparted to the remaining structure. Additionally, the design of the cockpit has multiple layers of extremely strong carbon fiber and Kevlar formed in such a way that forces are redistributed around the structure and withstand penetration and crushing. The many and regular crashes occurring over the years have provided a wealth of data for the design of each succeeding generation of racing cars. Very little data is collected for the teeny-tiny sailplane market, with only three or four manufactures worldwide.

Modern sailplanes comply with CS-22 crashworthiness standards that spell out minimum requirements for structural rigidity and cockpit penetration. Unfortunately, bringing crashworthiness up to F1 standards would require a cockpit that would be lots heavier and might not help much at all, as the deceleration of the little pink body inside is difficult to control. You can scramble an egg inside the shell.

Perhaps the next generation of composites (graphene, etc.) will allow for more robust structural integrity, but be prepared for a large price increase.


--
Dan, 5J


Not good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjKCoHD278

Tom
  #28  
Old September 11th 18, 01:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.
  #29  
Old September 11th 18, 01:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 624
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:41 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.


My favorite place during landing in the Ilyushin IL-76 was lieing head first on the navigator's window. In a crash it'd be over quickly.
Perhaps shows how enjoyable that job was.
Jim
  #30  
Old September 11th 18, 08:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Glider Cockpit Safety

At the OSTIV meeting in Delft in 2007, a presentation was made before the delegates of Training and Safety Panel and Sailplane Development Panel by professor Antonio Dal Monte, the then Director of the Italian Institute for Sport Sciences. Prof Dal Monte had been involved in the official analysis of Senna's crash, and had also been instrumental in creating the detachable safety cockpit for racing speedboats after the fatal crash of Stefano Casiraghi, husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco while he was defending his world offshore title.

Having analized a series of fatal glider crashes, he concluded that the mass of the wing with the strong spar positioned right behind the head of the pilot was a major factor in the lethality of these crashes. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was killed when his wooden Siebert 3 (similar to the Ka-6) spun in, and when picking up the pieces, we found the T-handle of one of the main bolts had been bent on impact. His head had been one foot in front of that bolt...

What Dal Monte proposed was a detachable safety cockpit for gliders, mounted on rails that would be angled approximately 30 degrees (more or less parallel to the backrest) and fixed by a suitable weak link. In case of a crash, the whole wing and rear fuselage would be guided under the cockpit instead of crushing it. He even suggested making a standard cockpit to be used by all manufacturers, as the real differences in profile at cockpit level are rather small and this would reduce the costs.

Unfortunately, the engineers from the main manufacturers, present at this reunion, simply laughed the proposition away without even seeming to consider the option. I always thought that, had the professor been a German instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the pros and contras. But Italy = opera + mafia in the head of many people. It is also Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Glider Safety Webinar Tom[_12_] Soaring 3 January 3rd 12 11:53 PM
Glider Safety Tom[_9_] Soaring 1 March 2nd 10 04:41 PM
Glider Safety Tom[_9_] Soaring 65 March 2nd 10 12:39 AM
Glider Safety, etc. None[_2_] Soaring 3 February 27th 10 04:46 PM
SAFETY TOOLS IN OUR COCKPIT [email protected] Soaring 7 October 17th 08 06:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.