Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pan Am 103  
User currently offlineFlywithjohn From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

Since the case was closed, because the bombers were convicted was the remains of pan am 103 recycled since there's that law saying it couldn't be till the case was closed? Some the information here http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/headpage.html

Always Blue Sky's.....
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineGSM763 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

I would doubt it. The aircraft used on 103 was a very old 747-100. If you add the wear and tear it would suffer to the bomb damage and the fact that it was all put togeather again I don't think any airline would want it.

User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2352 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

No none of the Aircraft parts were re-used on other aircraft however I think you were asking if the wreckage was then melted down and recycled into other things.

If this is the case then I believe it was, The flightdeck section was kept in a scrapyard down in the south of England until a few years back when it was finally scrapped. I personally think they should have kept it as a memorial but I digress.


Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2827 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

The page didn't load for me

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineFlywithjohn From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Yeah I meant if the wreckage was melted down yet you couldn't use not of the part being the existent of damage done to it. Also crashing into he ground at that speed but I meant the wreckage whether it had been melted down.

Always Blue Sky's.....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pan Am 103. Twenty Six Years Ago At Lockerbie... posted Tue Dec 21 2004 15:38:46 by TACAA320
TWA 800 And Pan Am 103: Where Are They Today? posted Sun Sep 8 2002 20:45:00 by M.seles_fan
Libya Offers $2.7 Billion Pan Am 103 Settlement posted Wed May 29 2002 04:05:17 by Setjet
Question About Pan Am 103 posted Thu Jan 24 2002 19:27:17 by Arsenal@LHR
Anniversary Of Pan-Am 103 posted Sat Dec 29 2001 02:29:11 by ROSWELL41
Why Didn't Security Improve Since Pan Am #103? posted Sun Sep 16 2001 23:29:44 by Bobcat
Pan Am 103, Lockerbie posted Wed Jan 31 2001 13:12:54 by Whisperingiant
Pan Am 103: 12 Years posted Thu Dec 21 2000 01:37:18 by Jiml1126
Pan Am 103 Trial posted Sat Mar 4 2000 07:39:12 by Pilot1113
PAN Am 103 Wreckage posted Mon Jun 7 1999 03:11:08 by DAZ777