SWA3472

[D-ECHO]

On a DC-9, the aircraft involved in this accident, the engines are far closer to the cabin as seen here:

than the CRJ1000, so I think engine parts (which will probably mostly fly to the side) shouldn't hit the cabin...

[Falcon]

When It comes to crash survivability and possibility of salvage, I would definitely go with the 737. I am personally a fan the 787 and 747 series. but for reasons that I can not explain, The 737 is my top choice.


Hayden

[D-ECHO]

I think the most crash security has the Q-Series:

(start at 23s)
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ures-cabin
...and many more

[HJ1an]

When It comes to crash survivability and possibility of salvage, I would definitely go with the 737. I am personally a fan the 787 and 747 series. but for reasons that I can not explain, The 737 is my top choice.

Would part of the decision be that they still have redundant mechanical links to the controls ? I'm not sure if they'd retained this in the new ones though. One thing I'm pretty sure : the nose gear is now collapsible in the event of a hard landing, in order to prevent it breaking off the entire nose section like in the recent crash test of a 727.

[jwocky]

That Q was lucky, they come in so slow. With the landing speed of a fully loaded jet, it would have looked a wee bit different.

About this discussion abut flying engine parts. If you spin something, things go away tangential. Means to the sides ... to ALL sides. And since planes move forward, most parts go sideways and slowly aft. Things go bad if they hit something hard and ricochet back. So, engine parts flying in the rear of the plane, there must be some factor involved that was not reported.

And about the comparison between 737s and the aboutish equal size Airbuses: The landing speed is for both about the same, the 737 is usually a bit heavier than the smallest buses. The forward damage on the Airbus was caused by the Airbus ability to flip forward because the engine casings are more aft and less massive. The 737 would need really a lot more speed and a very steep touch down to do that, otherwise those engines are just in the way of a good crash and you have to grind them down first, which, as the photos showed, is not an easy task,

[D-ECHO]

about the Q, it was a known problem by the crew (gear showed "in-transit") so they came in extra slow and passengers were moved to other places so noone was hurt by the flying around propeller after landing.

[jwocky]

@D-ECHO: This shows once more, no brand label can replace a cockpit crew that knows what they are doing.

[HJ1an]

about the Q, it was a known problem by the crew (gear showed "in-transit") so they came in extra slow and passengers were moved to other places so noone was hurt by the flying around propeller after landing.

Speaking of flying propellers - is it me or has it always been that the fuselage of the ATR-72s have an added layer of material (possibly carbon fiber reinforced Kevlar, I like to think) around it near the propeller region?

Was this added after a case where prop pieces nearly hit a passenger when the props hit the ground disintegrating, or is it a feature of the ATR-72 all along since its inception?

see pic:

[KL-666]

Any propeller plane has a reinforced strip along the line where a loose propeller might impact.

Normally it is some 10-20 cm wide. The one on your pic seems a bit wide to me.

Kind regards, Vincent

[HJ1an]

Good info, thanks. I actually never knew this. Any idea when this actually became a thing? I'm guessing late 90s?

I certainly don't remember it on the old Twin Otters, Dorniers and Fokkers I've sat in or prop planes that I've properly looked at.