Béla Barényi - the art of the Crumple and Survival Cell

[TheGreenGoblin]

Béla Barényi (1 March 1907, Hirtenberg, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy – 30 May 1997, Böblingen, Germany) was an Austro-Hungarian engineer, who was a prolific inventor, sometimes even compared to Thomas Edison. Barényi made numerous crash protection inventions, and is therefore regarded as the father of passive safety in automotive design.

Barényi is also credited with first conceiving the original design for the German people's car (the Volkswagen Beetle) in 1925, – notably by Mercedes-Benz, on their website, including his original technical drawing, – five years before Ferdinand Porsche claimed to have made his initial version.

Barényi was inducted into the Detroit Automotive Hall of Fame in 1994,and nominated for the award of Car Engineer of the Century in 1999.

Barényi died in Böblingen, Germany in 1997. A Mercedes advertisement featuring Barényi’s image stated: “No one in the world has given more thought to car safety than this man.” Béla Barényi left a broad record of his inventions to the Technisches Museum Wien in Vienna in his native country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Bar%C3%A9nyi

The art of the crumple

The survival cell

[TheGreenGoblin]

[TheGreenGoblin]

See John Stapp - https://www.ops-normal.org/viewtopic.ph ... 32#p289432

HAN's Device

[Pontius Navigator]

Given the g forces imposed by the rocket sled, Strapp's survival is due to two things. One is the resilience of the human body and the other is not colliding with solid objects.

An F1 safety cell may not deform but the crucial element in driver survival is not impacting with the cell. Restraints are a crucial element.

Ejection from an aircraft is also similar to impacting a solid object. Early British ejection seats used an overhead handle the was supposed to improve body posture and a face blind to secure the head provided you retained a firm grasp with both hands. To avoid the seat pan accelerating faster than the pilot's bum, the cushion was thin and practically uncompressable.

At higher speeds in denser air full body restraint, or a capsule, becomes essential.

What kills is the unrestrained contact with the environment.

In an aircraft survival is very much a risk/cost balance. The risk of a helicopter ditching or a military aircraft ejection is high against the cost of immersion suits and dinghies.

In contrast the risk of an airliner ditching is low but the cost of providing proper dinghies for survival in mid Atlantic very high.

Similarly the cost of providing a survivable cabin environment is very high compared with the risk.

Then there is the marketing reluctance to sell safety to Joe Public. Virtually any clothing is permitted when safety suggests nylon next to skin is unwise, uncovered flesh too, and good footwear would be more sensible than flip flops.

An indestructible cage is possible, whole body protection is possible, vaccination against Covid is possible, but many will resist high levels of protection against low perceived risk.

[TheGreenGoblin]

Given the g forces imposed by the rocket sled, Strapp's survival is due to two things. One is the resilience of the human body and the other is not colliding with solid objects.

An F1 safety cell may not deform but the crucial element in driver survival is not impacting with the cell. Restraints are a crucial element.

Ejection from an aircraft is also similar to impacting a solid object. Early British ejection seats used an overhead handle the was supposed to improve body posture and a face blind to secure the head provided you retained a firm grasp with both hands. To avoid the seat pan accelerating faster than the pilot's bum, the cushion was thin and practically uncompressable.

At higher speeds in denser air full body restraint, or a capsule, becomes essential.

What kills is the unrestrained contact with the environment.

In an aircraft survival is very much a risk/cost balance. The risk of a helicopter ditching or a military aircraft ejection is high against the cost of immersion suits and dinghies.

In contrast the risk of an airliner ditching is low but the cost of providing proper dinghies for survival in mid Atlantic very high.

Similarly the cost of providing a survivable cabin environment is very high compared with the risk.

Then there is the marketing reluctance to sell safety to Joe Public. Virtually any clothing is permitted when safety suggests nylon next to skin is unwise, uncovered flesh too, and good footwear would be more sensible than flip flops.

An indestructible cage is possible, whole body protection is possible, vaccination against Covid is possible, but many will resist high levels of protection against low perceived risk.

I am amazed that civilian airliner manufacturer's haven't been forced to place the seats the other way around, i.e. face the tail. Military analysis has shown that this is far safer and increases survivability considerably.

Air crash investigators have found that flight stewards in rear-facing seats have suffered less severe injuries in accidents than forward-facing passengers. This is because the energy from the body as it decelerates rapidly in a crash is dispersed evenly through the seatback, rather than concentrated on the seatbelt, which cuts into a person facing forward. Although rear-facing seats are probably safer, airlines have resisted them, largely because they fear passengers will find the idea unacceptable. British Airways has installed rear-facing seats in its Club World cabins; Southwest Airlines in the US experimented with the idea in economy class, but reverted to conventional forward-facing seats.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-tec ... backwards/

The average passenger (i.e. human) has the intelligence of a weevil. These things should just be mandated.

[ian16th]

There was a Hastings crash near El Adem that illustrated the benefits of rear facing seats.

When I was a regular customer of BA between Leeds-Bradford and LHR, on their Viscounts. I always made a dash for one of the 6 rear facing seats.

[TheGreenGoblin]

There was a Hastings crash near El Adem that illustrated the benefits of rear facing seats.

When I was a regular customer of BA between Leeds-Bradford and LHR, on their Viscounts. I always made a dash for one of the 6 rear facing seats.

[Boac]

The cost to airlines would be prohibitive.

[TheGreenGoblin]

The cost to airlines would be prohibitive.

A couple of high profile court cases would soon disabuse them of that position. I am not suggesting that all currently airworthy aircraft should be changed. New aircraft should be purchased with rear facing passenger seat configuration. The cutover would take years but ultimately it would save lives.

[Pontius Navigator]

TGG, a problem with rear facing seats is public acceptance. On climb out you would be tipped forward rather than pressed into your seat. I suspect that modern noise abatement departures could be uncomfortable.

As you might imagine, I have spent many hours in rear facing seats and was used to bracing against the table when the tin triangle did its stuff.

Curiously I have little recollection of the Nimrod. I know my seat flight position was to 1-1.30 position and I think take off and landing was to 12 o'clock.

On the E3 again I cannot remember, though the Shack was definitely rear facing.

[TheGreenGoblin]

TGG, a problem with rear facing seats is public acceptance. On climb out you would be tipped forward rather than pressed into your seat. I suspect that modern noise abatement departures could be uncomfortable.

As you might imagine, I have spent many hours in rear facing seats and was used to bracing against the table when the tin triangle did its stuff.

Curiously I have little recollection of the Nimrod. I know my seat flight position was to 1-1.30 position and I think take off and landing was to 12 o'clock.

On the E3 again I cannot remember, though the Shack was definitely rear facing.

I suppose being reasonable, for once, post prandial satisfaction having somewhat quashed my Ralf Nader like safety zealotry, the statistically low chance of the average commercial airline passenger ever being in an accident makes the cost benefit argument of changing airliner configurations very marginal indeed. I suppose we should all be happy the Michael O'Leary hasn't had his way, otherwise passengers would all be standing like so many cattle...

[Boac]

A couple of high profile court cases would soon disabuse them of that position.

That would not overcome the enormous increase in air fares that would result. Add to that that the number of accidents where rearward facing seats would make a difference in survival is small.

[TheGreenGoblin]

A couple of high profile court cases would soon disabuse them of that position.

That would not overcome the enormous increase in air fares that would result. Add to that that the number of accidents where rearward facing seats would make a difference in survival is small.

Raise prices, let hoi polloi go to Butlin's instead. Bring back the glamour to airline travel, when only the beautiful, and rich people could fly to take the air in Gstaad, or canoodle in the sand at St Tropez....

I agree with your reasoned approach Boac. I am just playing devil's advocate...

[TheGreenGoblin]

A couple of high profile court cases would soon disabuse them of that position.

That would not overcome the enormous increase in air fares that would result. Add to that that the number of accidents where rearward facing seats would make a difference in survival is small.

A change to the seating arrangements in future aircraft shouldn't add any undue extra cost though. Some of the costs arguments were made by coach operators when they were forced to provide safety belts for their passengers.

[Pontius Navigator]

On safety, consider that fig leaf called a life vest. Assuming a ditching even just a few miles offshore in a North Sea winter your survival time in would would be minimal. Should you be able to get a place on an escape chute you would scarcely be better off. The pretty little drill card showing the passengers neatly distributed around the raft while just holding on would have no relevance for real.

I think the RAF VC10 carried MS26 life rafts, I bet the Voyager doesn't.

Regarding extra costs for rear facing seats, didn't the RAF reconfigure the TriStar?

[TheGreenGoblin]

On safety, consider that fig leaf called a life vest. Assuming a ditching even just a few miles offshore in a North Sea winter your survival time in would would be minimal. Should you be able to get a place on an escape chute you would scarcely be better off. The pretty little drill card showing the passengers neatly distributed around the raft while just holding on would have no relevance for real.

I think the RAF VC10 carried MS26 life rafts, I bet the Voyager doesn't.

Regarding extra costs for rear facing seats, didn't the RAF reconfigure the TriStar?

I agree about cold seas and life jackets. The little whistle always makes me want to laugh for some odd reason. Imagine ditching somewhere in the middle of the northern Atlantic in winter with the little peeping whistle and feeble light for succour in the icy sea.

Having flown light aircraft to places like the Shetlands, I have always thought of the life jacket (without survival suit) as a buoyancy aid that might be of some help if one was able to put down close enough to a fishing boat or small craft, but that would most likely provide easy recovery of one's corpse later, thus expediting the insurance and funeral arrangements and the merry widow's mad rush to spend whatever lucre one might have been able to leave to posterity...

[Pontius Navigator]

TGG, a short dip in the Channel in May was enough to turn our copilot's hands in to claws. The lifejack was used to haul him on board. We pushed him down and pulled as his jacket pushed him up.

[Boac]

We pushed him down

Why were you trying to drown him, PN?

TGG -

A change to the seating arrangements in future aircraft shouldn't add any undue extra cost though.

A rearward facing seat is significantly heavier than a forward, and the floor needs reinforcing too - think moment arms. I cannot recall the figures - maybe twice as heavy?

[TheGreenGoblin]

We pushed him down

Why were you trying to drown him, PN?

TGG -

A change to the seating arrangements in future aircraft shouldn't add any undue extra cost though.

A rearward facing seat is significantly heavier than a forward, and the floor needs reinforcing too - think moment arms. I cannot recall the figures - maybe twice as heavy?

I can see why a rearward facing seat would require strengthening due to the moment of inertia comprising of the whole weight of the upright human body (higher centre of gravity) with the hinge point being on the floor, which implies floor strengthening too, but are we to continue to let forward sitting passengers flap forward, submarining down around the pitiful pivot of the belt causing internal injuries, as their legs thrash forward in the case of accidents, often breaking shin bones, with their heads banging against the back to the seat in front of them too, causing neck injuries as well, thereby disabling them and preventing emergency egress in the case of fire etc. The weight of the seat needn't become a major factor in the economics/cost of the cabin if economies of scale in the use of certain light carbon fibre or foam manufacturing techniques are taken into account. I do agree that there would be a cost consideration but it would not be too onerous with careful design, imagination and thought.

Like every change, it would require a minor sacrifice (a small increase in the cost of an airline ticket). For all my (I think) good arguments, sadly, I can't see it happening though, given the cost benefit argument. Accidents are rare enough to make this a moot point which it is until one loses a member of one's own family in such a crash!

[ian16th]

I cannot remember the details, but on the RAF Britannia's it was a quick job with a spanner to change a rear facing row of 3 seats to forward facing, and remove a pack up box from the freight, to set up for a bridge school when 214 went on detachment.

But we had plenty of empty seats to strap into, for take off an landing.