Glider Cockpit Safety

While they were not perfect, they did better than quite a few early/mid glass ships. Too many back then would "eggshell" with a reasonable nose down hit leaving the pilot hanging out there from the hips (or so) down just sitting in wreckage.
Saw a few of them as well.
I never said they were great, but many bad landings had peeps walking away in a SGS compared to a lot of glass ships. I was there in the retrieval on both.

Yes, pretty much all mfr's do better now. Then again, I have been around this for about 45 years, so I have seen a lot of the progression over time as well as the aftermath.
No mfr is perfect, even now, but yes, they are mostly better.

Sorta like saying, "why didn't auto manufacturer so and so make their cars safer in the 60's?". Sheesh, a lot of cars then around the world had seat belts as an option. Most are pretty good today, provided you at least "sorta" use what is already there. Belts are number 1. They work on their own, they also make airbags a LOT more effective when needed. Airbags without seat belts may actually be worse in some cases!

Carry on with the discussion.

Likely a lot cheaper.
Not nearly as fun and more likely to miss the group gatherings at a Soaring site or contest. That is, to me, part of the draw.
But yes, safer other than the constant upgrades for faster PC and Internet connections.......LOL.....

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:44:46 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
While they were not perfect, they did better than quite a few early/mid glass ships. Too many back then would "eggshell" with a reasonable nose down hit leaving the pilot hanging out there from the hips (or so) down just sitting in wreckage.
Saw a few of them as well.
I never said they were great, but many bad landings had peeps walking away in a SGS compared to a lot of glass ships. I was there in the retrieval on both.

Yes, pretty much all mfr's do better now. Then again, I have been around this for about 45 years, so I have seen a lot of the progression over time as well as the aftermath.
No mfr is perfect, even now, but yes, they are mostly better.

Sorta like saying, "why didn't auto manufacturer so and so make their cars safer in the 60's?". Sheesh, a lot of cars then around the world had seat belts as an option. Most are pretty good today, provided you at least "sorta" use what is already there. Belts are number 1. They work on their own, they also make airbags a LOT more effective when needed. Airbags without seat belts may actually be worse in some cases!

Carry on with the discussion.

I didn't really mean to slam SGS. The certainly did no worse than any others, and maybe better in some ways concerning structural robustness. Remember the 1-36 that got over-gee'd, bending the wings up into a distinct "V"and it still flew for a couple hours and landed safely?

I've flown a 301 Libelle for over 20 years. You can very nearly read a newspaper through the fuselage. I think that's a safety feature. No one dares crash in one.

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

Appears to be pretty survivable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loNgEDxeQc8

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:25:49 PM UTC-4, 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

My DG 202 has a double wall safety cockpit, there is no removable seat pan for this reason.

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:26:19 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad that ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less fatalities.

Ramy

Yes, safety cockpit can save you or your back in occasional landing gone bad, probably survivable anyway. Spinning to ground or crashing ridge at flying speed is not survivable with any cockpit, there is too much energy and too little structure to absorb this.

European ultralights (LSA with 1000lb MTOW) are mostly (?) equipped with airframe rocket parachutes. Cost doesn't seem to be prohibitive, judging from number of them in use. This should have been mandatory equipment for gliders since 90's, think of lives saved after midairs.

At 05:56 10 September 2018, krasw wrote:
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:26:19 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad
that
=
ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less
f=
atalities.=20
=20
Ramy

Yes, safety cockpit can save you or your back in occasional landing gone
ba=
d, probably survivable anyway. Spinning to ground or crashing ridge at
flyi=
ng speed is not survivable with any cockpit, there is too much energy and
t=
oo little structure to absorb this.

European ultralights (LSA with 1000lb MTOW) are mostly (?) equipped with
ai=
rframe rocket parachutes. Cost doesn't seem to be prohibitive, judging
from=
number of them in use. This should have been mandatory equipment for
glide=
rs since 90's, think of lives saved after midairs.

Ballistic chutes can only protect against problems at altitude, high enough
for the chute to deploy. If the accident only starts to happen at low
altitudes then it won't help at all. And the chute has to be menually
deployed so the piilot has to recognise there is going to be an accident
while still at altitude. Not sure how many glider accidents meet these
criteria. Midairs are the only ones I think.

Chris

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.

The weight of an F1 tub is about the same as a std class glider out if the moulds. I have made plenty of both

Yes, you can make a glider cockpit like a F1 tub but the cost will be crazy.
Where you currently have 3-4 plies of carbon kevlar in a Discus 2 you then need 15-20 and honeycomb etc to make the F1 tub.

Designing it to withstand the different crash situations is the problem.
F1 is tested straight ahead against a wall at something like 750kg and 15m/s. It only has to work like that, not at 45 deg
Likewise the side crash and squeeze tests.

A good challenge and should be done, but not the easiest to realize