From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:42 PM > On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Gerard M Foley wrote: > > From: <lafrance@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:43 PM > >> I guess CO is now not to blame as they claimed............. > >> > > Sorry, I did not catch on to the fact that the story really said that > > the > > titanium sheet did not come from the DC-10. > > > > It asserts that if the sheet had not been titanium it would not have > > caused > > the rupture of the fuel tank. I assumed story implied that titanium > > had > > been substituted for an original material on the DC-10, which is of > > course > > extremely unlikely. > > No, you got it right the first time. The material DID come from the CO > DC-10, but the gist of the story was that it was titanium instead of > the "original alloy", and the original alloy would not have been strong > enough to puncture the tires, but titanium indeed was. > Thanks for defending my translation, and maybe it was near right. But why in the world would anyone substitute titanium, expensive and difficult to work, for duralumin in a part that can fall off an airplane without affecting its flying? Apparently if the CO DC-10 really lost anything it didn't matter much to it. Was it made of titanium so it would really tear up tires when it fell off? Gerry http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/ http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263/egypt/egypt.html