FH1100.
I think you need to get off your high horse and stop having a go at everyone and everything on this thread cos you dont like SAC or whatever your gripe is. this is a discussion board not an Argument board.
i was correcting your misleading statement about the sponsons. you suggested the whole lot ripped off because it crashed. well i was pointing out that part of it is meant to rip off. if the crash forces were enough to rip the u/c hardpoints off then it would have also ripped the floats off had they been deployed
i was pointing out the errors of your post based on the DESIGN of the aircraft, which as an engineer qualified on the aircraft type, feel am more informed than you to talk about. this includes what i said about birdstrike tolerance, the example i gave was mearly one of those features. im not trying to defend anything or anyone, or speculate on how succesful the design is or was on that occasion.
The arguments you seem to want to make are not for this thread, try the crash thread, but even there, try to at least discuss, not berate the other posters for having a different opinion.
One more thing. If the FAA passed the aircraft for certification, then i would expect its for them to defend why, not sikorsky.
(combative reply awaited.) (would a "sorry, lets discuss this like adults" be out of the question?)