undefined | Better HN

0 pointscesarb4y ago0 comments

> The plane flying missing half the fuselage suggests to me that fuselage was excessively strong (and therefore heavy and expensive).

It's probably the opposite: that the fuselage was only strong enough to resist the air pressure differential, and that the real structural component was the cabin floor. And that, luckily, the control cables for the tail were routed through the cabin floor, instead of through the top of the cabin.

0 comments

stevehawk4y ago

It's not the cabin floor. it's what the cabin floor is attached to. Most fuselages have all of their longitudinal strength in their stringers, which are usually run along the floor. If the Cirrus had ripped through the bottom of that plane and not the top then that jet would have torn apart.

londons_explore4y ago

Stringers in a plane seem akin to stringers in a car frame... Cars have moved away to unibody designs (where the shell of the car is also the structure) because it is stronger, lighter and cheaper. Unibody designs have been the norm for almost 100 years now.

hyperbovine4y ago

Nit: SA-226 is a turboprop not a jet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse