Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!agate!bionet!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!pp!milano!banzai-inst!wex
From: wex@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com (Alan Wexelblat)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Toughness of Boeing craft
Message-ID: <1543@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com>
Date: 7 Nov 88 20:44:56 GMT
References: <2137@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <5590@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> <794@hadron.UUCP> <4995@cadnetix.COM>
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 17

In article <4995@cadnetix.COM>, eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes:
> The early B-52 bomber (Boeing plane) had huge pointy tails. The story goes that
> about 10 feet of the tail got knocked off and still managed to fly and land
> no problem. Rumor has it, the pilot reported that he had better response and
> control. The next generation of B-52s had shorter tails (flat topped).

The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could
absorb and still keep flying.  Pilots flew them with one engine (of four),
put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc.

Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing
building our shuttles?

-- 
--Alan Wexelblat      ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM
                      UUCP: {rutgers, uunet, &c}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!wex

"Old VW buses never die - they just get captured by Deadheads."