Is there any info out there on tube and fabric crash tests and energy absorption by wings, engine mounts, and fuselage? It would be nice to both strengthen and lighten our planes with modern materials, but the right things still need to give and they need to give in the right direction when they do.

There was a thread on this Forum a few years back on crash testing of small GA airplanes that found low wing to be more survivable. My experience agrees with that. I caught a fence on takeoff with a fully loaded Pawnee that turned me into a pile of stumps that destroyed the left wing and some of the fuselage, but no damage to me. Good head ringing out with the side load that did not injure because of my SPH-4 Mickey Mouse looking Army helmet. I cartwheeled a CallAir into a cotton field that broke the right wing spar in two places and tore the engine almost off, but left the left wing and tail feathers and me intact. I put a Pawnee on its back in soft dressed rows that did considerable damage but none to me, again helmet was necessary. Not trusting the way an Ultraflight Challenger II (high wing pusher) was flying I immediately tried to return to the airport in a similar fashion to what I was used to in 13 engine failures. No helmet. I was in ICU for a good time and never recovered any memory of the last part of the flight. New picture shows nearly level but right wing slightly damaged and the front seat fuselage area, where I was, completely crushed. Tubing on the Challenger was too light, but it would have been nice to have a wing to crash on.

contactflying wrote:There was a thread on this Forum a few years back on crash testing of small GA airplanes that found low wing to be more survivable. My experience agrees with that. I caught a fence on takeoff with a fully loaded Pawnee that turned me into a pile of stumps that destroyed the left wing and some of the fuselage, but no damage to me. Good head ringing out with the side load that did not injure because of my SPH-4 Mickey Mouse looking Army helmet. I cartwheeled a CallAir into a cotton field that broke the right wing spar in two places and tore the engine almost off, but left the left wing and tail feathers and me intact. I put a Pawnee on its back in soft dressed rows that did considerable damage but none to me, again helmet was necessary. Not trusting the way an Ultraflight Challenger II (high wing pusher) was flying I immediately tried to return to the airport in a similar fashion to what I was used to in 13 engine failures. No helmet. I was in ICU for a good time and never recovered any memory of the last part of the flight. New picture shows nearly level but right wing slightly damaged and the front seat fuselage area, where I was, completely crushed. Tubing on the Challenger was too light, but it would have been nice to have a wing to crash on.

Yeah, I worry a little bit about planes like the AirCam, Yukon Chinook, Double Ender, etc. There just isn't much in front of you in those planes. They have great views, but it's like driving a Chevy Corvair with no hood, bumper, or front axle. It would be nice if there were some sort of crumple zone in front of them.

I'll try to find that thread.

I work in the automotive/military vehicle crash test market in my day job. To my knowledge there's no official testing on small or large aircraft. NASA Langley did a series of crash tests to determine if ELT's were being triggered properly, but that's about the extent of it. I would certainly be interested in the answers and would love to help setup the tests, but that would require some donor airframes.

I'll go back and look at the NASA tests, I don't think they used any crash dummies, but if they did I may be able to interpret some of the data.

The test someone posted here several years ago had dummies. They dropped the Cessna and I forget the model of low wing from high up in a tall hanger attached to cables. The swung it forward to give it some forward speed, but the airplanes didn't try to fly.

hamer wrote:I work in the automotive/military vehicle crash test market in my day job. To my knowledge there's no official testing on small or large aircraft. NASA Langley did a series of crash tests to determine if ELT's were being triggered properly, but that's about the extent of it. I would certainly be interested in the answers and would love to help setup the tests, but that would require some donor airframes.

I'll go back and look at the NASA tests, I don't think they used any crash dummies, but if they did I may be able to interpret some of the data.

There were some crash test dummies involved in the NASA tests. However, I don't think they did more than just hard landing tests, although the 172 hard landing on soft field was a little more interesting.

A little off topic, but I wonder if there is data proving that the heavier seats installed in newer aircraft (restart Cessnas) actually add value from a safety standpoint.

They look better, but probably not as crashworthy as the 25 g seat in a Huey.

Quis wrote:

hamer wrote:I work in the automotive/military vehicle crash test market in my day job. To my knowledge there's no official testing on small or large aircraft. NASA Langley did a series of crash tests to determine if ELT's were being triggered properly, but that's about the extent of it. I would certainly be interested in the answers and would love to help setup the tests, but that would require some donor airframes.

I'll go back and look at the NASA tests, I don't think they used any crash dummies, but if they did I may be able to interpret some of the data.

There were some crash test dummies involved in the NASA tests. However, I don't think they did more than just hard landing tests, although the 172 hard landing on soft field was a little more interesting.

Trouble is they likely used H3's which aren't designed for vertical loading. So there will be some data, but not perfect. I recently developed a new vertical loading dummy with the Army for blast/IED testing, WIAMan, that would be the ticket for testing like this.

CParker wrote:A little off topic, but I wonder if there is data proving that the heavier seats installed in newer aircraft (restart Cessnas) actually add value from a safety standpoint.

Might, but if you really want to protect seats need to have some type of stroking. I'm not really up to speed on GA injuries, really need to know what the main injury mechanism is, whether blunt trauma to the head, or spinal injuries.

https://agate.niar.wichita.edu/Crashwor ... 88%20Rev(A).pdf


Hmm. Not sure what I’m doing wrong to get the link to work