What alternative to aluminium can to be used to build air-planes that would preserve lives during a crash?

Question

I KEEP WONDERING IF ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT IS AS STRONG AS STEEL BUT LIGHT AS ALUMINIUM CANNOT BE FORMULATED OR DOES NOT EXIT FOR AIR-PLANE CONSTRUCTION. AN ELEMENT THAT WILL NOT FRAGMENT TO BITS ON IMPACT WITH EARTH. THIS WILL INCREASE THE CHANCES OF SURVIVAL IN THE EVENT OF A PLANE CRASH.

Answer 1

Make the aircraft out of shoes/fluffy teddy bears they always seem to survive an aeroplane crash in one piece.

Answer 2

A greater danger in aircraft crashes seems to be fire, rather than fragmentation. I flew and crashed an all-aluminium plane in 1945 and it didn't fragment - just buckled a bit though!! A fireproof material would be the answer, but for that benefit we might have more weight and cost. Incidentally, I saw a DC3 burn up in minutes after a nutcase of a fitter used a hurricane lamp in the dark, because there were no spare torch batteries, while he was draining off water from the fuel tanks!! This happened at Mingaladon in Burma, and maybe some other "answerers" were there, too. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

Answer 3

Well, titanium is much stronger than aluminum and about the same weight...trouble is, it's MUCH more expensive. So expensive that none of the airlines could afford to buy planes made from it.
Of COURSE we could make commercial jets safer. But unfortunately, it's always a trade-off between safety and what that safety would cost. Frankly, I don't think even a titanium airplane would survive most of the types of crashes that happen now, although it would do better in some crashes. And the fact is, there just aren't that many crashes per year that would justify an airplane that costs 100's of times more than they do now. Really, the bottom line is that the odds of you dying on any particular commercial flight are incredibly low, much less than being hit by lightning (and how many of us have actually been hit by lightning?)...so unless you're willing to pay $10,000 to fly from, say, LA to Seattle -- you're not going to get titanium planes. Or many other major safety improvements.

Hey, I average over 250,000 miles per year flying, and I've never even had a close call -- I like the odds :)

Answer 4

A similar question is often asked: Why can't we make planes out of the same stuff that the Black Box (flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder) is made out of. Here's my canned response to that question:

It's not indestructable. It's protected mainly by the crushable cabin of the aircraft. Only the data recorder mechanism is hardened. If you built an aircraft to those standards, it would never leave the ground. Imagine an M1A Abrams tank with 3 foot wings.

Even if you had some magic material that was totally indestructible and light enough, the passengers would still all be killed. When the aircraft crashed, it would come to an instant stop but the passengers would keep moving at 500 MPH. They'd but cut in half by the seatbelts which would act like cheese slicers. The body parts would then be smashed into the seat or bulkhead in front of them and all of the guts and goo would spray all over the inside of the aircraft. Nice visual, eh?

OK, back to this question.

As another one pointed out, far more people are killed in car crashes than aircraft crashes every year. The annual average number of deaths in all aviation accidents combined world-wide is probably less than 2,000. Yet over 45,000 people die on US roads alone and world-wide numbers probably run into the millions.

Upwards of 60% of those fatalities are drug or alcohol related! You'd save FAR more lives pressing your lawmakers to further tighten the rules on DUI/DWI and step up enforcement than you'd ever save trying to innovate in the aviation industry. Air travel -- even with the current terrorist threat -- is STILL the safest means of travel, bar none. You're 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (of which our illustrious US President is one, by the way!) than you are to die between your arrival at the departure airport and departure from the arrival airport.

Answer 5

Nice idea, I guess carbon fibre would be the strongest and lightest but costs a fortune compared to aluminium. But bear in mind that a structure with no deformation in a crash just means that the entire load is passed to the occupants. You want something that absorbs the impact spreading it over time so no high G force (that kills) is experienced by the occupants. eg put an egg in a a strong metal box and drop it, it will break, but put an egg in polystirene and it may survive. Aluminium is quite strong, trouble with air crashes is the phenominal speed they tend to happen at means whatever you do its likely to be a big impact..

Answer 6

I agree that making the plane from a material that will prevent deaths will make flying economically worthless.

However, I do wish to respond to two parts of your question.

First, some of the best material, I believe, that is being used for planes are composites. They are like plastics with fiberglass threads.

Also, Aluminum isn't used on airplanes because it has a better strength/weight ratio than steel. Really, if you figure out the forces on something and then design it in steel and then in aluminum, the steel piece will probably be lighter. They use aluminum because it is weaker, so it takes more of it, so the sheet of metal is thicker, which prevents buckling better. Anyway, my point is that changing materials often introduces concerns that weren't even there for the previous material.

Answer 7

At this point, research is being conducted to finf alternative materials for aircraft. Sertain tipes of carbon fiber are being used in new business jets, and these are being tested for the commercial industrie as well. Keep in mind that all aviation development takes far longer then automotive developments, so it takes some time.
The new material must be light, strong, cheap, fireproof atleast up to a sertain temperature, and must be able to absorb damage instead of transfering it to the occupants.
it's in the making, take a look at the tail section of a boeing 777, or the front part of the fuselage of the 787, and some airbus componets as well.

Answer 8

The problem is not the strength of the material . . .
6061 T6 Aluminum is extremely strong and also very lightweight . . .
It is the design, the weight and the speed . . .
that causes the problems.
In fact Boeing is so concerned about weight . . .
that a new plane will be weighed . . .
before and after they paint it.

What we need are better designs . . .

Think of a plane as an empty aluminum can . . .

Throw the can at a wall and see what happens . . .

than put rocks in the can and try it . . .
(the rocks represent people)
Then try to imagine what would happen if you increased the speed.

Now go to the links below to view your test results . . .
to see how well your imagination scored.

Give yourself an A+ if your results . . .
are the same as those shown at the links.

Answer 9

There is already fewer fatal plane crashes than at any time in the last 20 years. Most lives are saved by all the preventive maintenance performed on the aircraft, and all the training that the people in commercial aviation receive. Aviation is about preventing the crash in the first place, not trying to make planes crash-proof. That simply isn't practical.

If you really want to save lives, then please ask the same question about cars. Tens of thousands die every year in car crashes compared to the few hundred that die in airplane crashes. It seems that people start to care when 200 people die in a single incident, but what about those that die in cars by the ones and twos? You are a million more times likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than on the flight itself. It isn't until enough people die on the road that anything is done about it. At least in aviation they are constantly working to prevent accidents.

Answer 10

It is a long time since I worked with the Society of plastic industries of America (SPA) on thier publication but I seem to remember work being carried out on some polycarbonates. I think this was the main plastic used by general motors when they built an all plastic car (including the engine)

I am not sure if its strength would alter under extreme temperatures you find on a plane and if the continual temperature changes would destabalise it

Answer 11

what crashes are you thinking of.

a crash at high speed or from height is invariably fatal, however modern aero structures are remarkably strong .... think of that Hawaiin 737 which landed with the first 30..40 ' of the passenger compartment blew away mid flight.

it could be argued that aluminium is great, as it collapses and absorbs enrgey, is lightweight. some military planes which are even mor eworried about strength / weight ratios use Titanium but the cost is horrendous