Well, dumping any residual propellants was a standard procedure, but in that 1959 accident an engine fire prevented jettisoning the propellants and forcing the plane to land with full load.

Hey, I never said wanted to fly it! Only that if I got that close I would want to touch such an awesome machine.
8)

Jon

On that flight (the fourth of the program) there was an engine bay fire. The engine was stopped and the pilot Scott Crossfield jettisoned propellants but not all jettisonned due to the steep nose down attitude he had to use to approach the abort lake. It touched down ok initially but when the nose came down it came down heavily and broke the fuselage. The plane was reparied and flew later in the program and the pilot was uninjured.

HB related point. Look at the skid marks left in the lake bed in the armstong photo. We know theyre parrallel since theyre caused by the skids but due to the magic of perspective they appear to converge.[/code][/quote]

I've always wondered, why skids instead of wheels?

IIRC the reason was that skids take up much less space.

I think also the potentially high landing speed were an issue if tyres were to be the first point of contact with the ground. The drag on the skids would also bring the nose down and keep it there reducing the tendancy of the nose to rebound on landing. They did mean though that the plane was difficult to steer on rollout. The ailerons could be used to load one or other skid to change the drag and provide some steering but below approx 100 knots this effect was minimal.

Skids are lighter, smaller, less complex and work very well on dry lake beds.

Also to consider is the consequence of a tire blowout at 200 knots. None of the scenarios are pretty.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base