In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I really see no need to discuss this with you, but my take is that if
the carbon fiber didn't matter, they wouldn't be disassembling the
wing from a current ship and shooting things at it. Since you seem to
be a smart-ass without humorous intentions, I just guess you're
someone that knows what brought down the shuttle, and one of those
folks that is always correct. WOW! I am honored to have been
recognized as an inferior by you. Now, you know what you can go do.


On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
And what about the carbon fiber wing leading edge?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:40:40 +0000 (UTC), Jim Pennino
wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Justin Case wrote:
I don't know! $300K for a plastic airplane is a bit much for me.
After all, you see what happened to the wing of the Discovery when
they shot the foam at it? I've got to doubt that there will be many
plastic aeroplanes around that are 50 years old. But that's what they
similarly said when aluminum replaced tube and fabric.

The shuttle is metal, not fiberglass. The abative tiles are sintered silica.


What about it?

The Columbia was destroyed because hot gas got through the hole in the
ablative tile, not because of a problem with the underlying structure.

When you hit the atmosphere at 15,000 mph with a hole in you heat shield,
it doesn't matter what the structure is.

Is there a SR-22 that does 15,000 mph?

My, my, touchy to being contradicted, aren't we?


--
Jim Pennino