[ RadSafe ] Unidentified Helicopters Nearly Fired UponOver Nuclear Power ...

[John Grant]

ONE of the engines is the only thing on a large jet that has any chance 
of penetrating the containment.  The other engines will be hitting at an 
angle and the rest of the plane will just disintegrate as it hits the 
wall.  

Even before 9-11 it was not easy to drive up to a large jet and load it 
with explosives and then be able to take off without attracting a lot of 
attention.

Gerry Blackwood wrote:

>Yep well we know if the engine hits us we are fairly ok...... but lets try a Boeing 737 Cruising speed: 795 - 908 km/h  and with a typical take-off weight: 62.8 t loaded with fuel and  explosives ???? 
>
>
>BLHamrick at aol.com wrote:In a message dated 3/12/2005 2:22:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, sandyfl at earthlink.net writes:
>If I my memory is correct, there has been an actual case of a small 
>plane hitting a containment building. There was no damage. Perhaps 
>someone else recalls the scenario?
>
>Here's a note on the tests from Mechanical Engineering Magazine, June 2002:
> 
>"The U.S. aircraft engine tests, conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, slammed a 4,000-pound jet engine into a 24-inch-thick concrete wall at 240 mph, resulting in extensive cracking and spallation (concrete pieces on the inside of the wall become dislodged and airborne), but no penetration. The same engine hitting a 63-inch-thick, reinforced concrete wall, similar to a nuclear containment structure, at 480 mph resulted in less damage and no penetration."
> 
>Barbara
>
>
>
>
>"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
>radsafe at radlab.nl
>
>For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
>http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>  
>