Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hropus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ijk
From: ijk@hropus.UUCP (Ihor J. Kinal)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Subject: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe"
Message-ID: <196@hropus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 14:37:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hropus.196
Posted: Fri Jan  3 14:37:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 05:24:19 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 70
Xref: watmath net.aviation:2316 net.politics:12767

From Letters to the Editor, NY Times (1/3/86).

	"As what is being called the worst year in commercial aviation 
history comes to a horrendous close, I have yet to hear a single voice
raised, in any journalistic medium, asking, 'Must they die?'  Instead,
Government investigators and news media ask, 'Why did it crash?'  Have
we been brainwashed into believing that aircraft deaths are inevitable
in a crash?
	"They are not.  Even beyond the degradation of safety that is a 
very probable result of deregulation and the elimination of experienced
controllers is the refusal by all concerned to recognize the existence of
an aircraft design that would not only reduce the potential for 'accidents,'
but would even guarantee the survival of most occupants in air crashes.
If my statements are exaggerated or incorrect, my errors would be pointed
out to all the world.  But proven facts can no longer be ignored."
	"The reasons people don't survive crashes have been recited ad 
nauseum since the 1950's: too high landing and takeoff speeds; too weak 
fuselage structural strength; fuel within the fuselage; engines and landing
gear mounted on the fuel-tank structure; seats not connected strongly 
enough to keep passengers restrained; seats not turned around (facing the rear) to absorb most of the energy of impact; plastic materials in the 
passenger cabin that smoulder and give off deadly gasses.
	"The evolution of the modern passenger plane has only served
to aggravate these design failures.  Why aren't these things corrected?
Because it's impossible with today's airplane design.  From Orville and
Wilbur Wright's all-lifting-surface aircraft, the modern jet passenger 
plane has become a minimum-lift projectile, with only 15 percent of its
structural weight surrounding its precious cargo.
	"Then why don't we change the design? Why don't we adopt a concept
developed in 1921, one that returns to the all-lifting-surface ideal
by providing a fuselage shaped like a wing section?  The vast increase in 
lift permits stronger materials to be used; landing and takeoff speeds to
be cut in half; shorter runways, and greater capacity, with reduction
in fuel consumption.
	"This design was turned into real-life airplanes at least eight 
times.  It was seen as the answer  to the ills of air transportation cited
above by the great names of flying of the 1930's and the war- years 
1941-1945.  It proved its superiority in 1935 in a high-speed crash that
resulted in no fire, no injuries and an intact passenger cabin.  In fact,
Boeing considered it superior to its own conventional plane (at least
as a cargo carrier) a few years ago but dropped it for no announced
reason.
	"Yet we won't even acknowledge the existence of the Burnelli
lifting-body.  Shouldn't the world's governments pool their resources
to replace all conventional passenger planes with this truly safe plane
within a year or two?  Who could possibly be opposed?"
					Edmund J. Cantilly
-------------------------------------------------
The NY Times added: "The writer, executive director of the Institute
for Safety in Transportation, is professor of transportation and safety
engineering at Polytechnic University."
---------------------------------------------------


Well, net readers, any comments on these proposals?  Prof Cantilly's
credential seem good, and I see no flaws in his presentation.

Also, what about re-hiring the terminated air-controllers??  I
believe they've been severely punished for their actions, and that
the current state of air-traffic controlling is near chaos
(the number of near-misses has climbed dramatically).  Anyone
want to add to this??

Ihor Kinal (not a pilot,not a former air-traffic controller, just
	a concerned user of the product; and if your not concerned
	after last year, well...............)
houxm!hropus!ijk

P.S.  Not reproduced was a 'cute' picture of a flying wing with
	people looking out portholes.  It did draw my attention
	to the article, so I suppose it was worthwhile.