3 ms·

Or more attention must be paid to engineering landing gear and structures to handle high landing weights. One must approach the problem with an eye to identifyi

Or more attention must be paid to engineering landing gear and structures to handle high landing weights. One must approach the problem with an eye to identifying solutions or we'll never get anywhere.

p_l 7y ago
There's more to it than just structural integrity - the heavier plane is generally less safe in an emergency, and despite some ideas proposed around you can't "get rid" of takeoff-power engines unless you drop Go-Around capability.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  There are other ways to ensure safety during an emergency. Not having flammable fuel on board can help a lot (and requires a non-flammable electrolyte to be developed for lithium batteries, which is already a thing for solid state batteries). Additionally, not all civil aircraft even have go-around capability. Sailplanes don't, for instance, and their safety is approximately the same as other general aviation aircraft. We'll have to get rid of the fiction that we're going to be able to just plop in electric motors and batteries in existing civil transport vehicles without any change in architecture or operations.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Are you going to get into a transport airplane that can’t go around? I’m not going to. I’ve been in two low level go arounds on commercial flights in VFR conditions (good weather) and one missed approach (bad weather) in the last two decades. Is that three times that I would have crashed? Maybe not; Delta probably could have stuck the downwind landing in Vegas and USAir probably could have stopped before the airplane that was slow in clearing at BWI. Delta into AMS in the snow and fog probably would have been a crash if they couldn’t execute the missed. Sailplanes are probably not the right model to go flying IFR to minimums, something that airlines do regularly.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      If it was engineered to be compatible with no-go-arounds safely, then absolutely I would. I've done it.

p_l 7y ago

There's more to it than just structural integrity - the heavier plane is generally less safe in an emergency, and despite some ideas proposed around you can't "get rid" of takeoff-power engines unless you drop Go-Around capability.

Robotbeat 7y ago
There are other ways to ensure safety during an emergency. Not having flammable fuel on board can help a lot (and requires a non-flammable electrolyte to be developed for lithium batteries, which is already a thing for solid state batteries). Additionally, not all civil aircraft even have go-around capability. Sailplanes don't, for instance, and their safety is approximately the same as other general aviation aircraft. We'll have to get rid of the fiction that we're going to be able to just plop in electric motors and batteries in existing civil transport vehicles without any change in architecture or operations.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Are you going to get into a transport airplane that can’t go around? I’m not going to. I’ve been in two low level go arounds on commercial flights in VFR conditions (good weather) and one missed approach (bad weather) in the last two decades. Is that three times that I would have crashed? Maybe not; Delta probably could have stuck the downwind landing in Vegas and USAir probably could have stopped before the airplane that was slow in clearing at BWI. Delta into AMS in the snow and fog probably would have been a crash if they couldn’t execute the missed. Sailplanes are probably not the right model to go flying IFR to minimums, something that airlines do regularly.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    If it was engineered to be compatible with no-go-arounds safely, then absolutely I would. I've done it.