4 ms·
It's easy to find better solutions given that we now know the hangers would fail. It's cheating to know that. For example, a probable solution would be to plac
by burfog 8y ago
It's easy to find better solutions given that we now know the hangers would fail. It's cheating to know that.
For example, a probable solution would be to place the aircraft far from things likely to become flying debris, then add sandbags... lots of sandbags. Park the planes on the runway, then add enough sandbags to divert the wind over the top.
I'd take that chance if I knew that the hangar would fail, but again, that is cheating.
- new_guy 8y agoExpecting basic competence isn't 'cheating'. They're planes. Fly them out of the way, it's not rocket science.
- dba7dba 8y agoBut these F22 were not fly able for whatever reason, mostly due to maintenance.
- mcny 8y agoI agree with you but maybe we're missing some facts? I don't know if Delta lied to me but the excuse they gave me one time or flight was delayed was that some lights in the cabin were not working so they have to do electrical inspection. They eventually gave us all alternative flight on American (after having us wait until 4 PM with an initial departure if 9AM). Point is, we don't know if the planes were in flight ready state, do we? It could be something simple but I'd not risk my officer's life just to save a plane. My apologies if the planes were indeed flight certified.
- mulmen 8y agoThe article states these planes were not airworthy.
- 7952 8y agoI wonder if a fighter jet would be damaged by the wind alone (ignoring debris) as long as it is tied down. Naively a fighter jet is already designed to cope with high speed air flow.