Joaquin Abreu's AE-5 safety plane

[Stargazer]

Joaquin Silveira Abreu was a San Francisco engineer who designed in 1926 a unique safety biplane design in which the engine and lower fuselage could be dropped by the pilot in case of trouble to glide to safety.

The following year he designed an airship using aircraft as propelling units, which could detach and operate separately.

In 1929, Abreu's search of a safety plane resulted in the development of the AE-5, powered by a 90hp LeRhône rotary engine. Built by the Aeronautical Engineering Co. in Oakland, the AE-5 was similar to his 1926 design except for its parasol wing configuration.

The AE-5 was built to validate Abreu's invention; unfortunately it crashed during tests in Alameda. The powerplant dropped into a sand dune, and pilot Reed Vowles overturned the plane when he landed in rough ground a short time later. He was unhurt but the plane was damaged, and Abreu apparently didn't pursue his dream of a safety plane any further.

 

[hesham]

Amazing find my dear Skyblazer.

 

[Boxman]

Here's British Pathe newsreel footage of the Abreu AE-5, showing the detachable engine and lower fuselage in detail, and then, the unfortunate demise of the aircraft.
British Pathé - "Anti-Crash Airplane Crashes (1929)" (Pathe description: "Anti-crash airplane (aeroplane) crashes on first flight. Novel 'plane built to detach engine when in danger and become glider, takes off, dives and crashes in 2 minutes. Alameda, California. America, (USA, U.S.A.).")

 

[avion ancien]

It strikes me that it was a very antisocial aeronautical concept. Even if the airframe - sans engine and lower fuselage apparently incorporating the fuel tank - allowed the pilot to glide to earth (a goal which did not seem to be achieved), unless the release was undertaken carefully with reference to what was below (maybe not the pilot's first priority if, as suggested by the publicity material, the engine was aflame), one might have faced some hefty claims for the damage caused by the jettisoned part of the aeroplane or even killed people on the ground potentially to save the life of the pilot!

 

[riggerrob]

It strikes me that it was a very antisocial aeronautical concept. Even if the airframe - sans engine and lower fuselage apparently incorporating the fuel tank - allowed the pilot to glide to earth (a goal which did not seem to be achieved), unless the release was undertaken carefully with reference to what was below (maybe not the pilot's first priority if, as suggested by the publicity material, the engine was aflame), one might have faced some hefty claims for the damage caused by the jettisoned part of the aeroplane or even killed people on the ground potentially to save the life of the pilot!

You can levy the same arguement against the West German Luftwaffe’s F-104G Starfighter fleet or any modern fighter fleet. Too many times I have heard news reporters congratulate “brave pilots who stayed in their doomed airplane long enough to steer it away from houses.”
BS! I say!
The doomed pilot had already lost control of their airplane and it was pure LUCK that it missed hitting houses.
Also remember that back during the 1920s, the USA was less densely-populated and most low altitude maneuvering was done over airstrips mowed on farmland on the outskirts of town. The most likely place to crash was on farmland.
Also consider that pilots righteously feared engine fires and pilot-emergency-parachutes were still crude back in 1920.