This is kind of a spinoff from the parachute thread. I was wondering, why aren’t more planes manufactured with the ability to float? Like the Spruce Goose. Wouldn’t that ability come in handy during a crash into water?
Say, while in the air, the planes loses all power, so there it is, plummeting downward. But, at the very least, aren’t the rudders still functional? That way, it can glide into the water, rather than belly flopping into it.
It would float if the wings fell off.
Sometimes that happens and the fuselage stays up a long time.
If you are talking about ability to land on water (an oxymoron, come to think of it) it’s not very easy to do. It’s as difficult as landing on a runway, in fact - you have to slow down the plane properly, fly almost level, and gently touch down. Otherwise the impact with the water would destroy the airplane. In fact, I’m pretty sure it is far more difficult than landing on a runway - the friction with water is far larger than the friction of wheels.
So, the ability to land on water would be no use if your plane was out of control. And if you had control, why not try to reach an airport? Keep in mind also that most crashes happen while attempting to land or take off. And the few accidents that happen over water usually involve mechanical failures that destroy or cripple the plane.
Also seaplanes are slower & less fuel effeciant than their land cousins- the streamlining is much worse, and the whole bottom of the airplane has to be stronger, and water-proof. Not to mention that jet seaplanes have been, generally, a failure, as salt-spray sucked thru the engines is very bad for them.
On the other and, this question is much better that the “Why don’t they make the entire plane out of the stuff black boxes are made of”.
Most airplane flights are over land, not water, water landing ability would not be much use for most flights. I do note that small planes can now be equipped with huge emergency parachutes that can safely land a plane that has lost power. Without a chute, an unpowered impact on water has the same effect as an impact on land… total destruction.
Back before WWII, when nonstop transatlantic flights were very difficult, the Germans used to run passenger service on seaplanes. The planes would stop to refuel at a tanker positioned in the mid-atlantic. Unfortunately these planes were not very practical, and passengers got seasick during refueling. A seaplane is not a very stable boat…
The Germans used a lot of seaplanes during WWII, and they all had major problems, the biggest being engine corrosion from seawater. The American WWII designs were much more successful since they put the engines higher up, away from the water.
Completely untrue. An ‘unpowered’ impact on land can be just as safe as a powered landing at an airport, if the land is smooth enough. Two months ago a plane landed on the freeway here with no power. Patrick Swayze landed at a dirt construction site and walked away, with ‘fender bender’ type airplane damage. What you mean is an uncontrolled impact, e.g. the wings fall off.
On water it is not much different - a small plane can usually land quite intact. The trick is getting out before it sinks. It can be preferable to land on water instead of land if your choices are the face of a cliff or a lake.
Let’s not forget Pan Am’s famous “Clippers”. http://www.m2com.com/M130.html
RE: Flying boats. Flying boats (“seaplanes”) were made because there were very few airports in the oceanic regions and the aircraft at the time didn’t have the range to fly non-stop to the destination. By building flying boats, the aircraft could land in any harbor without having an expensive runway waiting for them. Refueling could be accomplished anywhere by means of a refueling boat. (I’m pretty sure the standard practice though, was to fly to an island where fuel supplies were kept.)
Modern jet aircraft have the range to fly great distances without refueling, making water landings unnecessary. They are so reliable that it doesn’t make sense to build a hull for the odd emergency. Also, pressurized transport aircraft tend to have a circular cross-section because they are easier to pressurize. Since it’s more difficult to pressurize a boat-shaped fuselage, a hull would have to be added to the pressurized cylinder. That’s a lot of weight for insurance against something that rarely happens.
That’s what we’re talking about here: insurance. There are thousands and thousands of flights every day, and very very few of them do not result in normal landings. Building an aircraft with a hull, a full recovery parachute, or emergency egress systems for every passenger would result in a very inefficient machine. Think of your car. You could build a car like a tank. Maybe an M1-A1 Abrams with road wheels. Such a car would be very safe in a crash (as long as you were belted in and had airbags). It would practically never roll over. Damage from impact would be minimal. Carjackers would have a hard time getting you out. But is it worth it? How many people are willing to get 1 mile per gallon (or whatever) on the chance that they’ll need a vehicle with such capabilities? How many people would spend god-knows-how-much money to buy the thing in the first place? Would they be willing to pay for the infrastructure (wider, stronger streets) to use them on? Would we be willing to live with the increased pollution?
No.
The costs outweigh any possible benefits. Life is a gamble. No one is safe. But most people are relatively safe. The odds of surviving an air crash are greatly in your favour. Get on the plane and relax.
I’ve been on a float plane once, on a vacation in the Northwest Territories. It’s quite disconcerting when you see your plane about to land and realize that it’s just going to land on a big lake. I kept expecting something solid.
I used the phrase “float plane” because that’s what the pilot called it.
A “float plane” is generally a land plane with pontoons attached in place of the normal landing gear.
A “seaplane” is an aircraft designed with a hull.
Most seaplanes a retractable undercarriage so they can land on land, and some float planes have amphibious floats with retractable landing gear for the same purpose.
I did an internship with a company that built airplane floats, and Johnny L.A. has the terminology right. In addition, floats with retractable wheels were called “amphibious” (or just “amphib”), without the wheels they were called “straight” floats. I don’t know if it’s really any harder to fly on floats, but I do remember a few quirks about it.
One thing about floating hulls and recovery parachutes (and anything designed to make planes safer) is to be sure they don’t cause more accidents than they prevent. If a recovery chute deployed in flight when it wasn’t supposed to, that might be enough to bring the plane down.
After the TWA 800 accident, there was speculation about adding a pressurized nitrogen system to the fuel tanks so the vapor couldn’t ignite. Fine in theory, but can you design a system that doesn’t burst once in 30 years?
You bet your sweet ass I am.