|
||
|
Master Member
  加入日期: Apr 2001
文章: 1,933
|
引用:
那要看你有多少時間了, 乘客可不是訓練有素的軍隊, 你以為一二百人一起哄的情況會怎樣? 當然如果你在撞機一兩個小時前知道, 當時可以慢慢安排。而且進逃生艙和平時逃離機艙可是兩回事, 進逃生艙後還有很多事情要跟進的。 其實堅固的機身, 抗高G力的椅子(現在的機艙椅子好像是幾G拉力下便會整張鬆脫向前飛), 不會爆炸的燃料(好像是1:1混合某些東西), 在二十多年前我還在看讀者文摘時便已經有人設計出來了, 重點是成本問題, 因為這些都是會增加飛機的運作成本, 燃料的使用量, 到最後又是回到錢的問題, 一張到美國的經濟艙機票賣你1-2萬美元, 你接不接受到呢? |
||||||||
2008-01-20, 11:10 PM
#151
|
|
|
Elite Member
加入日期: Nov 1999 您的住址: Arlington, Texas
文章: 6,045
|
引用:
『一兩個小時前知道』.......哇，那更不需要這種逃生設備， 我想機長該做的是尋找最近的機場尋求迫降囉..........XDDD
__________________
My PC: AMD Athlon64 3500+ S939 2200mhz Corsair DDR500 512MB*2 Abit AV8 K8T800 Pro Hitachi HDS72251 6VLAT80 SCSI Disk Device 160GB/8MB Buffer Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-110D LITE-ON LTR-52327S USB2.0 CD-RW PNY Verto GeForce 6800 GT 256MB Linksys Wireless-G PCI Adapter Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS ViewSonic A71f+ ViewSonic VX2025WM Creative Inspire P5800 ASUS A2428PDV Microsoft XBOX 360 |
|||
|
2008-01-20, 11:45 PM
#152
|
|
|
Master Member
加入日期: Apr 2001
文章: 1,933
|
引用:
為甚麼我不由自主地會聯想到炸飛的機頂和彈出去的人總會撞上機尾的定向翼?  |
|
|
2008-01-21, 12:08 AM
#153
|
|
|
Elite Member
加入日期: Nov 1999 您的住址: Arlington, Texas
文章: 6,045
|
引用:
我也想到了早期F-104有一款是彈射椅往下彈射的設計， 當初是擔心往上彈射時會撞上機尾的T型垂直尾翼，但是後來發現這個設計有危險， 往下彈射就是代表說飛機起降時彈射椅不能用........
__________________
My PC: AMD Athlon64 3500+ S939 2200mhz Corsair DDR500 512MB*2 Abit AV8 K8T800 Pro Hitachi HDS72251 6VLAT80 SCSI Disk Device 160GB/8MB Buffer Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-110D LITE-ON LTR-52327S USB2.0 CD-RW PNY Verto GeForce 6800 GT 256MB Linksys Wireless-G PCI Adapter Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS ViewSonic A71f+ ViewSonic VX2025WM Creative Inspire P5800 ASUS A2428PDV Microsoft XBOX 360 |
|
|
2008-01-21, 01:06 AM
#154
|
|
|
*停權中*
加入日期: Nov 2006 您的住址: 福島滿的冰箱裡
文章: 687
|
引用:
 |
|
|
2008-01-21, 01:11 AM
#155
|
|
|
Master Member
加入日期: Feb 2004 您的住址: 加拿大
文章: 2,391
|
你要用那種彈射椅, 你會先把乘客打死!
你去坐飛機的時候請往你頭上看一下, 你頭上是啥! 要用這種彈射椅, 你要先撞破頭頂的行李櫃, 然後穿過機身結構在撞破鋁合金外殼, 運氣雖小一點坐到骨架下方還要先撞斷骨架才能彈出去, 那彈射椅啥做的啊? 靠, 我打死都不要, 還沒離開機身就變成一團肉泥 好吧, 你說預留縫隙, 那機體結構呢? 預留縫隙意味著結構強度降低, 結果就是飛航安全問題, 爆炸螺栓? 萬一一個不小心啟動? 不就整架飛機解體? 往旁邊彈? 那中間的乘客怎麼辦? 引擎前方的旅客呢? 會不會被引擎吸進去? 好吧給你排除萬難, 安全彈射出機外好了, 氧氣問題呢? 掉到水裡的話呢? 掛在樹上呢? 掉到荒郊野外呢? 不是每個人都是求生專家 此外還有許多不適合彈射的人, 孕婦, 小孩, 老人 都是付同樣機票錢啊, 為何其他人都彈射走了這些卻要等死?
__________________
Rule #12: Never date a co-worker. Rule #13: Never involve lawyers. Rule #23: Never mess with a Marine's coffee if you want to live! Rule #51: Sometimes you are wrong 純白の吸血鬼は微笑む：私を殺した責任、とってもらうからわ - アルクエイド ブリュンスッド 貴方に出逢い STAR輝いて アタシが生まれて Was aus Liebe gethan wird, geschieht immer Jenseits von Gut und Böse - Friedrick Wilhelm Nietzsche Cain was the first man ever to strike down another... and when the Lord came to him and said ‘What have you done!?’, Cain could not hide his crime. For the voice of his brother’s blood cried out from the very ground The world has been your battlefield, everywhere you go. The blood of brothers and sons screams out against you. Perhaps you cannot yet hear it, because the soil is not your own, but you will... you will |
|
2008-01-21, 01:41 AM
#156
|
|
|
Major Member
 
加入日期: Oct 2003 您的住址: 台北
文章: 127
|
引用:
飛太高不能彈射 太低一樣不能... 而假設飛機故障 從三萬英呎開始往下降... 第一個要考慮的就是下降的速度 再來才是機身傾斜的角度... 機身搖晃的程度... 達到安全高度後 可以應變的時間.. 我看也沒多久... 射彈椅的反應時間... 掉到安全彈射的高度後 彈射安全高度一般設定於15000呎 最低設定到六千好了... 一萬五千到六千 自由落體下降 大概也只有一分鐘給你反應 假設飛機還有些許動力 再加三十秒...... 假設 兩百個彈射椅 算算看一秒要彈多少人... 同時彈射 一次彈2個人(或更多) 那還要計算彈射出去的人不會追撞在一起 而且前面的先彈射機體開了個洞失壓 機身搖晃傾斜程度一定更加劇烈 而且人還不能座太近 不然彈射椅的火箭動力產生的熱 就會先傷害到旁邊的人... 所以彈射的過程就是要快... 但是現在是要彈射數十人甚至上百人... 問題一大堆啊... 要製造出來可能不是空想... 但是就是不切實際... cucubird 我的意思不是錢的問題 很抱歉我表達能力不是很好 我的意思是製造這玩意 也需要大量的技術... 民航機如果要裝 也應該以全機人員都要有來考量吧... 不然像空軍一號那種的... 那就真的簡單多了... 但是只能極少數人使用... 這樣感覺起來 那乾脆不要裝算了... 只是想和nzcym說 這可行性太低了...不是空想或是cucubird說的妄想 那這是什麼... 剛又查了一下 http://www.ejectionsite.com/ B-52也有彈射椅 6個人都有 還有二具是向下彈射的 不過和民航機還是不一樣... |
|
|
2008-01-21, 02:45 AM
#157
|
|
|
*停權中*
加入日期: May 2002
文章: 875
|
引用:
幫飛機加降落傘很瘋狂嗎? 看看什麼是 mission impossible 吧! 9-12:Safe Landing! http://nasaexplores.com/show2_912a.php?id=03-035&gl=912  Dangerous Mindset http://www.rjma.com/flight/airwaves/vol3-03e.htm  引用:
只有一個問題, 人命值多少錢? 換個角度看, 假設飛機在 30 kft (9 km) 出問題, 請問乘客/機長應當如何處置? 要是有第二種選擇, 誰願意與機共存亡! 彈射椅這東西就和汽車的安全氣囊一樣, 並不是裝了之後就能開車衝撞火車. 開飛機撞山. 它們屬於[救命的最後一根稻草]. 有了這根稻草只是多一些活命的機會, 沒了這根稻草那就只能 [兩眼開開準備投胎]. 退一步來看, 近十年內的汽車才開始把安全氣囊當成標準配備( 車廠撿過期的免錢專利使用) , 這並不是安全氣囊於十一年前才發明的問題. 裝了安全氣囊的車子於車禍時並不能保證所有的人都能活下來, 但是安全氣囊可能減少碰撞傷害; 雖然安全氣囊有可能在膨脹過程中擊傷乘員臉部, 但是這種傷害與乘員頭臉部直接撞擊方向盤, 儀表版或是手套箱的傷害比較起來還算是可以接受的輕傷. 所以最後大家還是選擇接受安全氣囊的輕傷而不是乾脆讓腦袋撞擊方向盤. 所以當您在努力批判彈射椅的可能傷害時, 您其實忘了不賭這一把的結果就是 [兩眼開開準備投胎]. 這就是贏回 2/3 本錢和莊家通殺的差別! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHoaYMsP9Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qid2...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHXzeM7T6mg&NR=1 ********************************************************* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag Patrick W. Hetrick of Newport, Pennsylvania, USA invented the air bag in 1951 and patented his device the following year. Hetrick came up with the idea to help protect his own family using expertise from his naval engineering days. Throughout the years, the saving of many lives have been attributed to Hetrick's invention and highlighted in television shows such as Nova on PBS, or as winners of awards such as the Golden Gear award. There have been devices similar to airbags for airplanes as early as the 1940s, with the first patents filed for those devices in 1958. Early air bag system origins traces back to air filled bladders. These systems were large and bulky, and primarily consisted of compressed or heated air, compressed nitrogen gas (N2), freon, carbon dioxide (CO2), or a mixture of water and potassium (KH2O).[1] The American inventor Allen K. Breed then developed a key component for automotive use—the ball-in-tube sensor for crash detection. He marketed this innovation first in 1967 to Chrysler. Air bags become mandatory On July 11, 1984, the U.S. government required cars being produced after April 1, 1989 to have driver's side air bags or automatic seat belts (the automatic seat belt was a technology, now discarded, that "forced" motorists to wear seatbelts). Airbag introduction was stimulated by the U.S. DOT.[6] However, airbags were not mandatory on trucks until 1995.[citation needed] In 1998, dual front airbags were mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and de-powered, or second-generation air bags were also mandated. This was due to the injuries caused by first-generation air bags that were designed to be powerful enough to restrain people who were not wearing seatbelts. In the United Kingdom and most other developed countries, however, there is still no legal requirement for new cars to feature airbags, even though almost all new cars now come with at least two airbags as standard. ********************************************************* |
||
|
2008-01-21, 10:04 AM
#158
|
|
|
Golden Member
加入日期: Jul 2000 您的住址: 北中南走透透
文章: 2,900
|
引用:
您老兄要不要張大眼看看圖中這架飛機多大？ 飛綠島的小客機都比這還大好幾倍了。
__________________
人生幸福公式：H=f^4，食物、樂趣、朋友及家人 
|
|
|
2008-01-21, 11:11 AM
#159
|
|
|
Basic Member
加入日期: Jan 2008
文章: 22
|
引用:
民航機一片尾翼都比這玩意大&重  啥都沒設想解決的情況下,加個彈射椅是給乘客另一種死的選擇權而已..... |
|
|
2008-01-21, 12:47 PM
#160
|
|
