Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (45146)	4/5/2001 3:49:24 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT - ditching again It's an energy management thing. Kinetic energy rises with the square of the velocity, and the ocean isn't flat. If you hit too fast, you rip the plane apart with the excess energy. Larger aircraft have more mass, which also contributes to the energy problem. Larger aircraft also require faster landing speeds (usually), so flaps become very important to lower the impact airspeed. The under-nose radome doesn't help, either. However - as stated previously, the Lockheed turboprop airframes (P-3 series and C-130 series) are very rugged. This one, with the nosecone gone, flaps out, engine(s) dead, and controllability/avionics problems would still have done well, IMO. There's just no guarantee of perfection, and that's the issue. - Mitch