Talk:Lifting body
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The M-2 was a -1088.html], it has the same tail number). andy 17:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lifting-body planes are safer and more efficient than current jets. Current jets have a fragile, tubular fuselage which breaks apart under a small amount of stress. The equivalent lifting-body design has a passenger compartment which is a rigid metal box, offering much greater protection to the passengers. Also, the engines aren't attached to the fuel tanks, as they are in most passenger jets. Why is this a problem? Because one of the engines could be forced into a fuel tank in a crash. Also, the landing gear on conventional jets are attached to the fuel tank(s), which are in the wing--usually the full length of the wing. So, if the landing gear collapses, the fuel tank could break open. The fuel tank in the wing is also typically under the passenger compartment. Would you want to sit just above the fuel tank in a crash? This doesn't happen with lifting- body planes. Yes, the fuel tanks are in the wings, but the wings are attached to the SIDE of the passenger compartment. Thus, there is no fuel under the passenger compartment. Also, the wings could be detached by the pilot, in case of a fire, at the moment of touch down. With most of the fuel gone, there is a much greater chance of survival. (The passenger compartment, the landing gear and engines continue moving.) Another advantage of lifting-body planes is reduced take-off and landing speeds. A large lifting-body passenger jet will take off and land at 80 mph, compared to 160 mph for conventional jets. This provides several advantages: There is less chance of tires blowing out; take-offs use less fuel; take-offs and landings are quieter; take-offs and landings use much less runway. The reason that lifting-body planes can take off and land at such slow speeds is that the plane's ENTIRE STRUCTURE provides lift, rather than just part of it with conventional jets.
A lifting-body plane, the UB-14, designed by Vincent Burnelli, once crashed into the ground at 195 MPH. This was on Jan. 13, 1935, as reported in Newsday Magazine for Dec. 12, 1982, page 19. Everyone on board survived. It would be interesting to have a Boeing engineer describe what would happen if their latest model crashed at 195 MPH.
Quoting from the Neswsday article, "The pilot, Lou Reichers, reported that he 'flew the ship into the ground from about 200-foot altitude...the right wing being nearly vertical and absorbing the first shock. This impact caused the airplane to cartwheel... The body remained intact, and no fuel leaked from the wing tanks... The box-body strenghth of this type...saved myself [sic] 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 is an extraordinary example of the crash safety that can be provided by the lifting-body type of design'." All ellipses were in the original text.
Current jets could be made much stronger by retrofitting the planes with Monocoque construction, which consists of installing strong metal beams in the fuselage walls, from the front to the back of the plane. This would make it much less likely that the flimsy fuselage would break apart under stress, possibly cracking one of the fuel tanks.
Another problem with current passenger jets is the emergency slides, which sometimes blow away in a strong wind, catch fire or fail to inflate. Lifting-body planes don't have this problem. The doors are three feet from the ground, so passengers could jump to the ground, or walk down a few steps.
On April 3, 2006, you may have seen a picture of the C-5 cargo plane that crashed in Delaware. It broke into three pieces, with the cockpit section completely severed from the rest of the plane. This wouldn't happen with the lifting-body design. Apparently the C-5 didn't have Monocoque construction (see above).
For more information, go to www.Aircrash.org .
Above text by S.L., Fridley, Minnesota, USA--Mar. 31, 2006. Updated Apr. 3, 2006.
[edit] Lifting body the opposite of a flying wing?
Is this really accurate? "It is related to, but the opposite of, a flying wing"
Doesn't make much sense to me and could use some explanation.
