Re Pic of Salvaging US Airways20.jpg

I still can't get over how little damage was done to the airframe.

"J3" wrote in message
...

"Scubabix" wrote in message
...
I still can't get over how little damage was done to the airframe.

Most of the damage was done on the bottom of the plane, from what I have
read. Pretty much all of the skin on the bottom of the plane is gone,
especially on the back part, with many of the structure under it also bent
and twisted, and some ripped away, also.

Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:35:43 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Scubabix" wrote in message
...
I still can't get over how little damage was done to the airframe.

Most of the damage was done on the bottom of the plane, from what I have
read. Pretty much all of the skin on the bottom of the plane is gone,
especially on the back part, with many of the structure under it also bent
and twisted, and some ripped away, also.

Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.

I'd give Airbus a pat on the back, too...

"Bob" wrote in message


"Scubabix" wrote in message
...
I still can't get over how little damage was done to the airframe.

Most of the damage was done on the bottom of the plane, from what I have
read. Pretty much all of the skin on the bottom of the plane is gone,
especially on the back part, with many of the structure under it also bent
and twisted, and some ripped away, also.

Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.

I'd give Airbus a pat on the back, too...




It's also reassuring in these troubled economic times that there's still an
airline in the US that's not only still buoyant, but they can float alone.





--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.

I'd give Airbus a pat on the back, too...

Yep. I intended to imply that, but I guess I didn't.

I'm not so sure one of the other major manufacturer's aircraft would not
have done as well, given the same circumstances. Doubtful we would know,
since it is doubtful (and hopeful) that the same circumstances will ever
happen again. I would say that this was a one of a kind situation.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:23:39 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.

I'd give Airbus a pat on the back, too...

Yep. I intended to imply that, but I guess I didn't.

I'm not so sure one of the other major manufacturer's aircraft would not
have done as well, given the same circumstances. Doubtful we would know,
since it is doubtful (and hopeful) that the same circumstances will ever
happen again. I would say that this was a one of a kind situation.

Well, Boeing has shown over the years that the vertical fins on some
of their models are really only decorative...

A B-52H lost virtually all of its vertical stab in turbulence over the
Rockies back in the early '60s, and still landed safely. In the early
'90s, an E-6 (707-320) lost its entire vertical stab over the Olympic
mountains west of Seattle and returned uneventfully (save the extra
laundry truck on hand) to Boeing Field.

"Bob" schreef in bericht
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:23:39 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


Still, it held in one piece, due to the smooth water and the excellent
touchdown. That says plenty.

I'd give Airbus a pat on the back, too...

Yep. I intended to imply that, but I guess I didn't.

I'm not so sure one of the other major manufacturer's aircraft would not
have done as well, given the same circumstances. Doubtful we would know,
since it is doubtful (and hopeful) that the same circumstances will ever
happen again. I would say that this was a one of a kind situation.

Well, Boeing has shown over the years that the vertical fins on some
of their models are really only decorative...

A B-52H lost virtually all of its vertical stab in turbulence over the
Rockies back in the early '60s, and still landed safely. In the early
'90s, an E-6 (707-320) lost its entire vertical stab over the Olympic
mountains west of Seattle and returned uneventfully (save the extra
laundry truck on hand) to Boeing Field.

All true, but vertical fins had nothing to do with this accident (as you can
see in every picture).
In this case the aircraft lost all power due to Goosama Bin Laden and the
pilot made a textbook emergency landing on the Hudson river.
The pat on the back for Airbus is fully deserved but perhaps a comparable
Boeing aircraft (the 737 being the most obvious) would also have done well.
Only a full scale test would provide an answer. Anybody know an airline that
will provide an aircraft for a test?

Regards,
Herman