October 1, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Hi all!
I’ve been having a little fun with MS paint. When I was at work yesterday, I started thinking how to make a commercial airliner more safe when it came to making emergency landings on water.
I came up with this result.

It’s just for fun. But I thought I’d like to hear your opinion. I’m a military airplane nerd, so I don’t know all that much about airliners.
Any thoughts on why it is unrealistic, uneconomic? Or what could be improved on the design to make it more realistic?
Hope you guys like it! 😀
By: chornedsnorkack - 3rd October 2006 at 09:11
A forced water landing will always be catastrophic except for some cases (like overrun of runway). And this is not talking: I know the people handling the ditching requirements at Airbus and if you ask them how high they rate the chances of an aircraft ditching: minimal if on open waters.
What are the chances of a seaplane ditching on open waters?
Seaplanes are built to ditch, and take off from water. They normally take off from sheltered waters near shore – but this might be because the destinations are often on land.
Can seaplanes deliberately take off from open waters? Especially important would be search and rescue missions on high seas – can a plane land in the middle of ocean in foul weather, pick up passengers, take off and fly away?
Also, what is harder to do in a seaplane – ditch or take off? Can a seaplane find that they can ditch safely but are unable to take off and have to wait for better weather?
By: robban - 2nd October 2006 at 15:09
Thanks for your inputs all! 🙂
By: kevinwm - 1st October 2006 at 20:32
very like the Russian Beriev A40 Albatros & BE42 Mermaid of the 8o,s
By: EGPH - 1st October 2006 at 20:23
First of all very well done on a great paint drawing.
Yes the plane does look very big and heavy. I would have thought a similar system to emergency slides but a huge air sack underneath the airplane which could be deployed in the event of the pilot having to ditch a plane!
I had this idea a while ago just never come up, what do you guys think?
By: Schorsch - 1st October 2006 at 18:18
Let’s assume that aircraft competes against a conventional design: Than I would rather use the added weight to ensure that aircraft never ditch in water.
A forced water landing will always be catastrophic except for some cases (like overrun of runway). And this is not talking: I know the people handling the ditching requirements at Airbus and if you ask them how high they rate the chances of an aircraft ditching: minimal if on open waters.
In general: weight contributed to increase crash-proveness is normally better invested in making it crash-safe, i. e. preventing the crash in the first place.
By: Deano - 1st October 2006 at 18:08
Any thoughts on why it is unrealistic, uneconomic? Or what could be improved on the design to make it more realistic?
Hope you guys like it! 😀
Aerodynamically it is going to be no better than a flying brick, infact with the steepness of the sundeck ( 😀 ) window I am not sure the tailplane will even fly, the airflow will be too turbulent.
Unrealistic also because how many emergency landing attempts have there been on water when you compare the types of emergencies that happen? very very few, certainly not enough to warrant such a design, 10/10 for effort on MSPaint though 😀
By: David2386 - 1st October 2006 at 17:14
That’s an impressive drawing for Paint, I’d never have the patience!
By: A225HVY - 1st October 2006 at 16:57
Big flightdeck!!!
Includes the sundeck for first class!! 😀 😀 😀
Very Bierev inspired 😉
A225HVY
By: SHAMROCK321 - 1st October 2006 at 16:35
Big flightdeck!!!