Originally Posted by
portmanteau
Perhaps interesting to speculate as to the damage caused by ploughing straight in on finals for 04 compared to overflying 22, not going around for reasons unknown and then going into the water.
The damage is interesting.
We've already seen parallels drawn with US1549, and although the circumstances were very different it's still valid to compare the damage to the 737 with that to the A320.
In the case of the Airbus, most of the damage occurred to the rear fuselage. That's hardly surprising, given that it ditched in a nose-up attitude and so the rear would have hit the Hudson first. Having said that, the passenger cabin remained intact.
The 737 also had a damaged rear fuselage, but this took the form of a more substantial structural failure. Clearly it had also hit (something) in a tail-down attitude.
The 737 ended up in the water. The question is: did the impact with the water cause that damage? We all know the old saw about "water is like concrete if you hit it going fast enough" - but it isn't, in a number of respects.
I don't believe that A320s are substantially stronger than 737s (nor vice versa). So would the 737 have to have hit something more solid, initially, than just the water in order to cause that degree of structural damage?
Answers on a postcard.