Re: China Airlines Jumbo

From:         rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date:         11 Nov 93 02:12:48 PST
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.726@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
|> The local bomb sqaud used explosives to blow off the tail on Sunday
|> morning as it was obstructing traffic.  Despite early reports that the
|> aircraft suffered only minimal damage, which would be consistent with
|> the minimal incursion into the water, the insurance company apparently
|> wrote it off as a total loss.  Seems odd for a brand new aircraft.

Not really---I believe the engines were under water, and certainly the
lower half of the fuselage by now must be totally saturated with seawater.
The effects of saltwater immersion on the electronic and mechanical systems
doesn't bear thinking about.  And that's no ordinary seawater either---it's
Hong Kong harbour water, polluted and horrible.

I read that all the new cars inundated by the Midwest floods will never be
the same again---the result of water in the engine, destroyed ignition systems,
damaged electronics, etc.  That's the effect of fresh water on much simpler
systems than on an airplane.  I think its quite understandable why they wrote
off the 747.