were the engines ripped off when it hit the water? I’m wondering if NOT having that additional weight is what enabled the plane to continue floating..in my mind, losing the engines on impact, if in fact that’s when it happened, had a tremendous amount to do with no fatalities..
Very true. But how would a flock of geese tear off two engines? Just asking, I don't pretend to know about these things.
not sure, sounds like they missed a bridge by 900 feet as well on descent.. he did a heck of a job gliding it down..
I would expect those engines to get ripped off , that water was fairly calm , when the engine lips catch solid, I would think they would shear off... but I’m no crash expert..
probably be a video or two that pops up of the crash, must be a few webcams around that area..
Certainly ripped off when it hit the water. In fact, their ripping off is what likely prevented the aircraft from flipping over. Without landing gear or engines hanging down a low wing aircraft is a good ditcher in calm water. Essentially acting like a seaplane.
If not immediately on impact, then shortly afterwards as the plane's momentum carried it downstream. Here's a photo of the plane as it was coming in for it's landing in the Hudson River. You can see both engines are mounted close to and below the fuselage. In that location, they would have acted as huge water scoops, probably helping to keep the plane from cartwheeling. But the weight and action of large volumes of water rushing through the already damaged engine housings likely would have ripped the engines off the plane.
Believe it or not, jet engines are relatively light. An interview with a passenger said that at first a lot of people headed to the back of the aircraft and it began to go down tail first. People yelled to calm down and to go back forward and then the plane leveled out again.
Bingo! on that, even if you are a Dawg, and the Cats are going to stomp you on Sunday. ;-P