Hudson Bus

[DispatchDragon]

Going home on the back of a low loader

The red circles are NTSB marking for birdstrikes and tearing damage to the fuselage forward of the door was done by
the rescue and salvage boats -- the creasing around the fuselage aft of the door was caused by the slings when they
hauled her out of the Hudson, Shes in pretty fair shaped I would say




Leif

[DaveB]

Cheers Leif.. interesting shot

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Techy111]

Be flying again in a week Leif.....nice piccy... ;-)

Tony

[SkippyBing]

yeah, that'll polish out no problems.

[speedbird591]

Cheers for that Leif - it doesn't look too bad considering what it's been through!

If you pick up any info about the engines, I'd be interested. Considering that it was a 'text-book' water landing I'd love to know why one engine sheared off and the other stayed on. They would surely have been designed to do one thing or the other! Either way, at first glance it would appear that one of the pylons didn't do what it was supposed to do.

Ian

[DispatchDragon]

I cant take credit for the photo, it was one of a group sent to my wife from a friend in NY apparently they happened to
be on the street when they brought the bus along.

Ian
I am sure that the NTSB, Airbus and even Boeing are positively salivating to have a complete airframe that has been
ditched to evaluate. In due course I am sure that they will reveal everything about the accident. However I am dismayed to continue to read that Airbus and Boeing have "explosive bolts" or breakaway points on pylons. At times the Internet , rather
than clarifying tends to make things even muddier. I am not about to present and bore everyone with my Bonafides but I can assure you that the A320s that I worked with were not equipped in such a fashion


Leif

[TSR2]

I had been told about exploding bolts years ago on 707's but I was only 11 at the time. Leif, do you know of any production aircraft that actually had them?

[Filonian]

Nice picture Leif.

Looks like a job for Quick Fit though

Graham

[DispatchDragon]

I have never worked on aircraft that had anything like that
Even the Dan AIr and Donaldson 707s

I think the point that people are missing is this

1/. Aircraft engines fail - The designers figure in the factor required with an engine pretending to be an anchor
to remain airborne at a factor or 1.3 of the MGW of the aircraft
2/. ALL engines today are fitted with Extingushing systems . my feeling is this
The legend began when someone overheard mechanics/engineers talking about "Squibs" on an engine
there are even external markings on the IAE2500 and the CFM that show their positions. The layman seeing
this might interpret it as an explosive device to remove the pylon -- far from it - they are the firing mechanism
for the extingushing system on the engine The bus has three if memory serves correctly one in the pylon which
fires the primary bottle - then two more in the nacelle itself two fire the secondary system, they are activated
by the two fire handles in the cockpit - anyone know what else those handles do? The likes of Skippy, Motormouse
and other spanner types are exempt ;-) Oh yes and Tonks and CT

3/. Why would you deliberatly change the aerodynamic properties of an aircraft already penalized by a dead engine?
More in Boeings than Airbus but anything that went BANG that removed the pylon would also be very liekly to
damage the slat and Krueger flaps


I'll get off my soap box now

Leif

[DaveB]

Hi Leif..

Well mate, depending on if you push or pull the handles.. they actually cut off the LP supply to the engines too.. at least that's what happens on EP

ATB

DaveB :tab: