Yepz, but what's violent? If the crash is so violent you can't survive it anyway, why bother with a stronger and heavier rear mount?Seen a lot of (long ez & velosity) experimental and other ( Helicopter,Fixed wing crashes), With the rear mount the engine will pass through you in a violent crash
Yeah, that's the opinion usually expressed by pilots. It's also false, composites can be far superior in crash survivability, if properly designed.Composets are strong but in an impact like in an typical aircraft crash you have multiple impacts and all the composits after the first impact are compramized and have little protection during the run out
So this 185 mph frontal crash should've resulted in the total destruction of the car during the 2nd hit wouldn't it?The speed measured when his car clipped the barrier was 300.13 km/h (186.49 mph), at a 75-degree angle, subjecting Kubica to an average deceleration of 28 g. After data from the onboard accident data recorder had been analysed it was found that he had been subjected to a peak G-force of 75 G"
And that's where proper engineering comes in. If you don't design for safety results may vary (but will probably be bad). If you do design for it, composites can be extremely good at it.Most Kit plastic planes do Not hold up in a crash
You did realize we're talking about 800 lbs boats that can survive 160 mph crashes?Too Heavy-Boats & planes have no common area
So they can't design good enough in composites. Your point being?Composet crash reactions and the storage of energy in a plastic reinforced structure make design problematic, Sikorsky & Bell did tests and the structures built out of aluminum had lower peaks and transfered less energy to the people.
Yes, because those materials are proven, the manufacturing is known, the tools already exist, the knowledge is already there and there is no economic driver for them. They sell 40 year old products for big money and don't have to innovate or improve. If you realize that the Formula 1 racing team (just the racing team, not the whole factory) of Ferrari probably has a bigger engineering budget as both of those companies together, you might get a grasp about the drivers behind these kind of decisions. Aviation simply lacks the budgets to advance rapidly, especially because of all the other complications of certification. The first certified carbon aircraft flew 35 years ago and were superior in every single area. Nevertheless it took 25 or so years before composite/carbon aircraft obtained a reasonable market penetration.The primary structures are still aluminum and placing composets in other areas.
Nope. Several of the high-end cars and many of the racing cars use composite crumple zones.I agree with Hillberg, metals absorb crash energy by yielding. Wood and fiberglass and carbon do not yield as well as metal(if at all).
That's why cars still have metal crush zones.
Energy absorption is fairly simple and proportional to: deflection*yield strength (assuming linear behavior). Yield usually is preceded by buckling and thus doesn't do that much. Carbon, dependent on the type doesn't do much better or worse as steel or alu.But the crumple zone should be designed for progressive yield. The area ahead of and below the rigid cockpit should be metal to absorb the energy, in my opinion.