Is there a technical citation for any of this? Regulations in the US
governing seat construction of even airliners have no such
consideration, and those regs are pegged to G forces much greater than
mere hard landings. The slower energy absorption of temperfoam et.
al. is superior, as the usual foam of typical thickness can bottom out
I believe is the phenomenon. But G-doubling, rebound spinal damage
even in a hard landing?
It appears that 1" of temperfoam is inadequate. The second stiffest
1" foam I have compresses almost completely (at room temp), allowing
for little further absorption and compromised comfort. Usual practise
if nor mfr recommendation, is 3", varying densities...?
Regards,
Fred F., A063
> Forwarded from the bounce bin. Message is from
> mks <mks@darcy.gwis.com>
> *****************************************************
> Here is a short technical explanation why energy absorbing foams are a
> must have in an airplane.
>
> Soft spongy foam in a hard landing has the unfortunate property that
> it slows down the rate of descent of your body while the AC does a
> hard bounce and comes back in the opposite direction - thus giving
> your back a very hard whack.
>
> Energy absorbing foams are very dense and compresses slowly.
> Consequently, the foam absorbs energy during the hard landing and
> your body does not get the doubling of force as in the above case
> because the body and AC move together.
>
> >From a comfort perspective, while dense foam is not as nice
> initially as the soft stuff, I find it provides much better support
> and comfort for long flights.
>
> I am not familiar with the foams you mention. I use confor foam.
> As long as you get an energy absorbing foam you should be fine.
> I personally use about one inch thickness. The only weakness with
> the confor foam is when it gets cold (freezing) it gets stiff as
> a board. Warm it up and it regains compliance. Dont flex it while
> it is cold or it will break.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> M
|