Why not foam?

you could do something like this:

2 small tanks of spray foam with nozzles to inject the foam into floor/wings.
explosive bolts on the engine mount to jettison that heavy anchor

Upon ditching pull red handle and engine sinks and low desnity foam is injected and sets up in seconds, providing buoyancy to float on water until coast guard appears to give you ticket for operating a vessel w/o registration.


:D
 
ChemGuy said:
you could do something like this:

2 small tanks of spray foam with nozzles to inject the foam into floor/wings.
explosive bolts on the engine mount to jettison that heavy anchor

Upon ditching pull red handle and engine sinks and low desnity foam is injected and sets up in seconds, providing buoyancy to float on water until coast guard appears to give you ticket for operating a vessel w/o registration.


:D
Click to expand...
Explosive bolts on the engine mount?! Where do I sign up?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Explosive bolts on the engine mount?! Where do I sign up?
Click to expand...
There has never been a failure of an explosive bolt system in the US program.

- V. Grissom

(okay, it's in poor taste)
 
GRG55 said:
Not if you open the door to get out :D
Click to expand...
That is more serious than you may think, every video I've seen the aircraft goes tail up and starts to sink. you ain't getting the doors open until the cabin is fully under water.
 
Tom-D said:
That is more serious than you may think, every video I've seen the aircraft goes tail up and starts to sink. you ain't getting the doors open until the cabin is fully under water.
Click to expand...

Maybe the door needs explosive bolts? ;)
 
jsstevens said:
To pick a nit (Hey! It's POA!) IF the remaining 10 compartments had remained air filled, the Titanic would not have sunk. The problem was as it tipped forward the water flowed over the partition into the next compartment, etc. They were only water tight up to somewhere around the deck line.

John
Click to expand...

Clearly they should have filled that thing with foam...
 
I'm glad to see that the creative minds of the POA community are just as clogged as usual. :rolleyes: My thinking wasn't so much for a retro fit to existing legacy airplanes most of us fly, but rather new planes and new designs. The typical GA single is full of empty space, space that could be used to make a plane float at very low cost.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm glad to see that the creative minds of the POA community are just as clogged as usual. :rolleyes: My thinking wasn't so much for a retro fit to existing legacy airplanes most of us fly, but rather new planes and new designs. The typical GA single is full of empty space, space that could be used to make a plane float at very low cost.
Click to expand...
I personally think it's a solution looking for a problem.
 
Tom-D said:
As most know I live in an area that has lots of water to fly over, I have seen a few owners that carry a raft, I always ask, "how are you going to get it out of the baggage area, and deploy it prior to the aircraft sinking" always get a blank stare.
Click to expand...

GRG55 said:
I am aware of that. Do you seriously think that if the cabin area is flooded the remaining volume in a typical GA aircraft shape can displace enough seawater to keep it afloat? Not having done the volumetrics I can't say with certainty, but I do have my doubts.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
Can you get every one out, the baggage area open, then drag out a raft in 30-60 seconds?
Click to expand...

p192i616p4f7imvjkmj7sd2m47.jpg


All of your problems are solved. It pushes everybody out pretty much immediately, and has the added bonus of keeping the main cabin nice and buoyant...so you can cling to the outside of your plane.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I personally think it's a solution looking for a problem.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Our old piston engines never quit, particularly over water. Really, I have no idea why they even make those dumb inflatable rafts. they really aren't needed.
 
Dav8or said:
Of course it is. Our old piston engines never quit, particularly over water. Really, I have no idea why they even make those dumb inflatable rafts. they really aren't needed.
Click to expand...
No need for the snarkiness. Foam isn't the solution. Also I wouldn't fly a single outside of gliding distance of land.

If you're that concerned buy a lake amphibian, they've solved that problem.

Or start your own aircraft company and prove all of us and the other manufacturers wrong and see if the market agrees.
 
Last edited:
Even pressurized planes sink. ;)

 
Dav8or said:
I'm glad to see that the creative minds of the POA community are just as clogged as usual. :rolleyes: My thinking wasn't so much for a retro fit to existing legacy airplanes most of us fly, but rather new planes and new designs. The typical GA single is full of empty space, space that could be used to make a plane float at very low cost.
Click to expand...
OK, just design inflatable "beach balls" that when inflated conform to a given compartment shape. Remove and install them as you feel necessary, if that'll make you feel better.
 
I was searching for pictures of floating Bellancas and came across this picture of a floating Junkers W33.

Ju-33_Esa_Atlantic_zps681c98fc.jpg~original


In 1931 these guys were on a transatlantic attempt from Portugal and the engine quit. They floated on this plane for 6 days before rescue to Newfoundland. Doesn't that sound better than life jackets? It's a Junkers made of metal. I have no idea why it floats this well, but this is what I'm talking about. Here's a picture of the recovery-

Ju-W33_transatlantic_attempt_1931b_zpsb2ee5929.jpg~original
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top