"Doug Semler" wrote in message
oups.com...
I read that as if he was talking about the fact that it took awhile for
the engine to stop even while spraying water and foam on it

Did it? I watched the video and didn't see any coverage of the actual
engine-stoppage process. In any case, the airplane should be able to fly
through pretty heavy rain at high speeds. I would certainly *hope* it would
take awhile to stop the engine spraying water and foam on it (depending, of
course, on where the water and foam is sprayed).

As an aside, what do you think the G load was on that engine at the
time the plane hit the ground?

Hard to say. The nose of the airplane clearly took most of the deceleration
forces. We don't know how far the airplane slid after impact, nor do we
know how much of the remaining force not absorbed by the nose was absorbed
by airframe and wing deflection.

I'd say there's a good chance it was under 10G, maybe even under 5G.

I thought it made for an amusing side note that the front end of the
plane (cockpit) was completely destroyed/demolished/missing...and the
engine just kept on truckin as though nothing was wrong

The juxtaposition was striking, I'll agree (maybe "amusing" isn't exactly
the word I'd use, but that's just me). I'm just not convinced that there's
any reason to believe that the engine *should* have stopped, or that this
accident shows any unusual characteristics of these engines compared to any
other engine used in aviation.

Pete