Plane wreckage left over after F-18 crashes into building. (compare to 9/11)

reply to post by grey580


Yes, you would think so Grey, but military fighter jets are relatively flimsy considering the loads they can come under in a combat situation; but fighters are built primarily for speed, with 'maneuverability' a secondary priority in the modern, high-tech theater of air combat. The reason being air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons are designed nowadays to mostly be used/fired from great distances if enemy surface-to-air defenses or aircraft haven't already been neutralized beforehand and the requirement of the fighter is one of 'preferably' super-sonic seeds allowing them to flee harms way in relative safety.

This means they must be as light as possible, but also allow for maneuverability of all speeds... which translates to an ability to withstand loads up to somewhere in the region of +/- 12g (or slightly higher perhaps), but only where its necessary i.e. the wing roots, engine mounts, fin roots etc... not right across the airframe and skin of the aircraft. This is very different than with commercial airliners.

Commercial airliners have to withstand huge stresses and loads and built to handle some very extreme events compared to fighter jets. It's a very rare thing to loose a commercial airliner through a catastrophic structural failure... more often than not it's due to massive system failures such as a complete hydrologic failure, jammed control surfaces, electrical malfunctions or fire. Commercial airliners just don't suddenly disintegrate or fall apart in mid-air... they're too damn strong and built like fortresses... hence when they do crash, they certainly don't just 'disintegrate' into dust. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise doesn't haven't a clue about commercial airliners, let alone what they're talking about.