"The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
Misspoken my ass! Anyone that knows anything about flight 93 knows that it did not all crash where they claim it did. It was shot down without a doubt and Rumslfeld spilled the beans inadvertently by being so careless about remembering who it was that he was addressing.
Engines don't bounce 1/2 mile away from the crash scene like the idiots in government claim it did. You are again defending the indefensible. Take a course in physics and then get back to me with your absurd theories.
Engines...I assume you do know that the engines are designed and engineered to fall off when under certain stress condidtions.
That's news to me. It's hard for me to fathom engineers making that a design priority, particularly considering the hazard of having only one wing mounted engine drop off.
If you were to see the skinny engine mounts holding the engine you would die of fright.
They are indeed designed to fall off rather than to impact or tear off the wing.
Aviation engineering is one of the most precise and forward thinking fields today.
Indeed it is a very high priority of design to ENSURE the engine falls off under certain stresses. Finding a engine miles away from a crash site is nothing new.
Aircraft engines are among the heaviest parts of aircraft so in some crash situations, I can see value in having them break away on impact. However, breaking away during flight, at least with wingmounted engines, would hardly be a saftey measure in my estimation, as if only one broke away, the aircraft would become rather unbalanced. I don't see any advantage to dropping an engine over keeping it on while in flight, even if it was on fire as fuel can be cut and extinguishers applied.
They are indeed designed to fall off rather than to impact or tear off the wing.
I've got a pilots license, and the SOP for crash landings was, if you don't have a clear landing space, try to take the plane between 2 trees or phone polls with the expressed intent of tearing off the wings. That way the enclosed fuel is largely dumped away from the passenger cabin reducing risk of burning to death or serious injury. Many of those killed in aircraft crashes are killed by fire. I think it would be better to have the wings ripped off.
Indeed it is a very high priority of design to ENSURE the engine falls off under certain stresses. Finding a engine miles away from a crash site is nothing new.
Please pardon my skepticism. I do recall a few DC-10 crashes from the 80's that involved engines dropping off, but my impression was they didn't fall off by design. I think I remember another case more recently, within the last 10 years or so in which a plane landed safely, but that there were no abnormal stresses involved. I don't remember hearing any other cases of engines falling off prior to crashes, and certainly none by design.