Pod planes

>>30525982
>The obstacle to this new invention is that the whole obsolete airport and airline infrastructure must be rebuilt. So what? Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s?


The answer is a resounding yes.

Theres a reason we're still using 5.56

>>30525982
Airports are very expensive. The A380 was sold on the plus point that it can still just barely fit existing airport infrastructure with minor modifications. So, not very likely.

>>30525982
>so in case of an accident it can be ejected and land on parachutes.
Why not design conventional planes to dump fuel, blow off wings, and deploy chutes when it detects a massive drop in altitude then?

Most aviation acidents are a catastrophic event. Your not going to have time to eject the pods .

Better bet is blended wing aircraft with large passengers compartments. But then you have to get people used to flying without windows.

>>30526015
Fuck yeah that is the military industrial complex through and through. Fascinating concept and will likely be a great tech if developed but I fear it will not be by the west

>>30526696
No it's not. You're adding tremendously extra amounts of mass, drag, and complexity to an environment where those are already at a premium.

How will your escape pod save you from an engine-out on takeoff? Another taxiing plane hitting yours? Failed instrumentation sending the plane into a mountain with no warning?

>>30526743
Already less than 1000 people die per year. How much will this cost to save those lives, and how many more could we save if we directed that money to any-fucking-thing else?

>>30526743
>Failed instrumentation sending the plane into a mountain with no warning?

What are human pilots for 500 Alex

>>30526835
People that fly planes into mountains when instrumentation fails during IFR flight despite numerous warning signs.

>>30526692
>Most aviation acidents are a catastrophic event. Your not going to have time to eject the pods .
it doesn't take much to pull a lever.

>>30526910
Large numbers of accidents involve pilots that aren't even aware they're in danger.

File: latest[1].jpg (224KB, 800x451px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

224KB, 800x451px

We Gundam Now.

File: remove bug.jpg (270KB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

270KB, 1920x1040px

>>30525982

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufk7JzW5SZk

Time to join the mobile infantry for that citizenship!

why not just use gliders?

>>30525982

The short answer is that aircraft do not need to be multi-role, especially if it means sacrificing performance.

>so in case of an accident it can be ejected and land on parachutes

This is retarded. It's like the kind of thing PopSci would run a hundred years ago in those articles about tanks that shoot sun beams and ships that walk on land.

>>30526692
>Most aviation acidents are a catastrophic event. Your not going to have time to eject the pods .

This.

>>30526910
>it doesn't take much to pull a lever.

He meant there isn't time for the pods to eject and deploy chutes, idiot. Not that there isn't enough time to push a button.

Aviation accidents happen in the span of seconds, often quite close to the ground. Generally, they can be described as "Everything was normal, but then, the plane slammed into the ground."

>Suddenly airliners can be converted into long range bombers within hours.
There's no way this could end badly.