Your opinion on this landing

http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359

Sheista wrote:
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




It looks like the place is reusable, so it's fine. G

"Sheista" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




Does not appear to have resulted from a landing, looks more like a ground
handling accident.

Sheista wrote
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359

Photograph had nothing to do with a "landing".

N366PX
The "Ditch Witch" This aircraft was left unchocked in MEM and rolled into
a ditch.

Bob Moore

Sheista wrote:
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




I know this already, but it always amazes me to see
the wing holding up the plane. It's propped off of
the ground on the one wing. I know this happens in
the air, it's just neat to see how strong the wings
actually are.

Does not appear to have resulted from a landing, looks more like a ground
handling accident.

What do you all figure the ground handler was making per hour?

-c

In a previous article, Erik said:
Sheista wrote:
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




I know this already, but it always amazes me to see
the wing holding up the plane. It's propped off of
the ground on the one wing. I know this happens in
the air, it's just neat to see how strong the wings
actually are.

In the air, the load is distributed along the length of the wing, rather
than just on the wing tip. So this wing is taking more torque than a wing
in the air.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"Cause geeks like us, baby we can hack the Sun" - Joe Thompson

Erik writes:

I know this already, but it always amazes me to see
the wing holding up the plane. It's propped off of
the ground on the one wing. [...]

As Paul wrote, the loading is different here. But what may be helping
here is that a lot of the force seems to be compressive along the wing
spar(s).

- FChE

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Sheista wrote:
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359


It looks like the place is reusable, so it's fine. G

was that a typo or a new definition of a good landing ?(ie only the place ,
not the plane has to be reusable.. :)
terry

Sheista wrote:
http://www.thepollspace.com/polls.php?pollid=1359




There was no landing shown. Parking and landing aren't the same.

Matt