Thanks for educated analysis. In my simplistic view, I'm imagining a car driving in a typical residential zone, 25 mph or so, and slamming into something and I couldn't see that kind of impact, even on a larger scale, doing the kind of extensive damage that the plane sustained. Input from you and other anons here has been great to get a better understanding of what occurred. Constant learning on GAW, any variety of topics.
Ripping off the entire front of the craft and catapulting the stewardess, in her seat, through the front just seems "severe". RIP to the two pilots, but this could have been much worse.
Thanks for educated analysis. In my simplistic view, I'm imagining a car driving in a typical residential zone, 25 mph or so, and slamming into something and I couldn't see that kind of impact, even on a larger scale, doing the kind of extensive damage that the plane sustained. Input from you and other anons here has been great to get a better understanding of what occurred. Constant learning on GAW, any variety of topics.
Ripping off the entire front of the craft and catapulting the stewardess, in her seat, through the front just seems "severe". RIP to the two pilots, but this could have been much worse.
It could've been WAY worse. For sure.
Cars are designed for head on impact at all speeds. They have crumple zones and all that stuff. Planes don't.
Look at the 60kmh here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/A63Z61PTl30