|
ekuNNN posted:"An Indian air Force Jaguar strikes a flock of birds on take-off, causing the pilot to jettison the aircraft’s CBLS pods and fuel tanks, which cause an explosion upon impact with the ground." Is jettisoning full external tanks supposed to do that? 
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
I don't think "supposed to" is the right phrase, but they are thin walled metal containers each filled with like 300 gallons of jet fuel smashing into the ground at high speed. The outcome is foreseeable
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
It’s not that far off what Hollywood does to get dramatic explosives, turn a bunch of fuel into a big cloud and light it on fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJiWbD08Yw
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Is jettisoning full external tanks supposed to do that? You generally jettison them when they're empty, not during takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that a napalm bomb is basically just a drop tank filled with napalm, right down to it not having any fins, so it tumbles as it falls and scatters the napalm widely when it hits the ground. The only real difference is that the napalm tank has an igniter on it to make sure it goes off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 04:33
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:Killdozer Jr. happened in my town today: My brother's yard was one of them that was torn up. The elementary school by my house was also at lockdown for this. I might have ordered and made a key for this very dozer at my work recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Toupee Groupie posted:My brother's yard was one of them that was torn up. The elementary school by my house was also at lockdown for this. I might have ordered and made a key for this very dozer at my work recently. I would have thought they're all keyed-alike with what is basically a fancy screwdriver the way forklifts usually are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:"An Indian air Force Jaguar strikes a flock of birds on take-off, causing the pilot to jettison the aircraft’s CBLS pods and fuel tanks, which cause an explosion upon impact with the ground." 'Causing' in the sense that the pilot was so badly trained that a bird strike made him hit the 'drop everything' button or in the sense that the bird strike made the pods unsafe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:'Causing' in the sense that the pilot was so badly trained that a bird strike made him hit the 'drop everything' button or in the sense that the bird strike made the pods unsafe? Having a pelican in your turbine is a situation that warrants emergency landing, and uh, you can't land with full external tanks because if the landing failed then the plane would be that fireball. The alternative to this is to fly donuts around the airfield for a few hours until the fuel is burned, but like said, it's emergency. Here's a little traffic safety from Ukraine: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1497144019247267841 (apparently it's the booster section of an MRLS rocket, so no warhead)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 11:29
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Here's a little traffic safety from Ukraine: Warhead or no, people trying to get selfies with UXO sketches me right out. Used to work in humanitarian de-mining and a lot of people die to poo poo that was meant to explode but didn't (when it was supposed to, anyway). PSA: The dud rates on basically all explosive ordnance (bombs, mortars, rockets, shells, cluster munitions) is bullshit. This is basically a deniable convenience for most militaries, as the unexploded ordnance denies areas indefinately without breaking international law regarding literal landmines. We lost a colleague in Rwanda to a BLU-97 cluster munition that just went off while they were preparing to blow it. Possibly from nothing more than the change in temp/moisture from clearning the leaf litter from it. We also got to help investigate incidents of civilians loving with ordnance. One that sticks in my mind, I wasn't there for it, but I read the report. Northern Uganda, some guys from the village bicycle repair shop find a downed helicopter gunship in the bush, and they take the ammunition for the cannon. They were taking the shell (projectile) out of the rounds, heating the shells up in the fire, then popping the copper driving band off the shell with a hammer and chisel. They had done quite a few by the time they heated one up hot enough for it to detonate. Killed everyone in the shop and wounded some outside. They wanted the copper for brazing bicycle frames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:Warhead or no, people trying to get selfies with UXO sketches me right out. Yeah, people just have no concept of these things being designed to kill a busload of people, and that if you find them lying on the ground they're very likely to be primed and ready to go. As I've mentioned in this thread, I served in the artillery of the Finnish Defense Forces. A good chunk of the training was being yelled at by staff to make sure even the dumbest conscript would understand, that every piece of equipment required to lob a cannon shell would be tracked, and nobody was to take souvenirs from a live firing. If even a priming tool or a protective cap went missing, the entire company would be strip searched until that poo poo was found. There was also this 'regret box' around where soldiers could anonymously and without repercussions drop stuff that they had accidentally left in their pocket, or had thought of nicking. The army really, really didn't want that stuff to get around. Even the simplest artillery rounds are composed of fairly complex parts, and the most dangerous bits aren't easily recognizable by people without training. The neat looking metal object next to the obvious bomb shaped one could very well be the most volatile piece, and the detonators for these things are more than capable of crippling or killing a person, even if the payload doesn't fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:Warhead or no, people trying to get selfies with UXO sketches me right out. Used to work in humanitarian de-mining and a lot of people die to poo poo that was meant to explode but didn't (when it was supposed to, anyway). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
A solid rocket booster might no longer be explosive but I bet it's got some nasty chemical residue on/in it
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:'Causing' in the sense that the pilot was so badly trained that a bird strike made him hit the 'drop everything' button or in the sense that the bird strike made the pods unsafe? He's losing an engine on climbout, and whatever max takeoff weight he had before, he sure hasn't now. Look at how much altitude he's losing, it's a bit difficult to see, but the water tower in the background gives an indication. After jettison he flattens his descent and manages to climb again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
Xakura posted:He's losing an engine on climbout, and whatever max takeoff weight he had before, he sure hasn't now. Look at how much altitude he's losing, it's a bit difficult to see, but the water tower in the background gives an indication. After jettison he flattens his descent and manages to climb again. Nah, birdstrikes are nbd and the pilot is fully at fault. Probably the ground crew's fault too for not maintaining the aircraft because, as I said, birdstrikes are nbd and certainly not a topic of great concern at airports and aerospace manufacturers the world over. Why, I bet you can't even find me an example of a bird strike knocking out one or both engines on a plane and causing it to crash.  While we're on the topic of things that were 100% pilot error, let me tell you about how lovely those French Concorde pilots were...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Xakura posted:He's losing an engine on climbout, and whatever max takeoff weight he had before, he sure hasn't now. Look at how much altitude he's losing, it's a bit difficult to see, but the water tower in the background gives an indication. After jettison he flattens his descent and manages to climb again. It's the boost from the air fuel explosion under the plane that helps him gain altitude! This is exactly how steam catapults on carriers work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Engines are bird tested and medium flocking bird is the most challenging test due to the risk of knocking out more fan blades than expected. When this happens to a turbojet (what fighters use) most of the bird gunk goes through the primary gaspath and can damage sensitive components in the combustion chamber and turbine section. Additionally, fan imbalance will be occurring and there may be a 'rapid oxidation' event due to the windmills loads and imbalance. That engine will probably be borescoped, checked for free rotation, and water washed to remove bird goo, then borescoped again. If there's no damage, it'll go back in the plane, otherwise they'll allocate a spare and repair the damage engine. Samuel L. Hacksaw fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:Engines are bird tested and medium flocking bird is the most challenging test due to the risk of knocking out more fan blades than expected. they should put a grate over those things lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:they should put a grate over those things lol. That creates fan inlet turbulence and will make the plane insanely loud. Put a finger or two over the end of your vacuum to see what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:That creates fan inlet turbulence and will make the plane insanely loud. There has got to be a better way 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
my grandfather didn't tell many stories from Guadalcanal, but here's one of them. all of his buddies were picking up souvenirs, so he decided to do the same. while they were out scouting, he found a (iirc) flattish square thing that he picked up. they came under fire and retreated back to camp, where he learned that he'd managed to pick up a Japanese land mine. he decided at this point to stop trying to collect souvenirs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
The Jaguar is an underpowered plane on two engines, he wasn't going to make it on one without dropping everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:There has got to be a better way birdblender.jpeg
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:There has got to be a better way Props are more susceptible. Less blades means bigger imbalance and inability to windmill leading to altitude loss from parasitic drag of the prop. This is the best we've been able to do to bird proof engines in 100+ years of making engines. On single engine craft, they usually have a really flat glide slope. Fun game, go find aerodynamically unstable single-engine aircraft and see what their primary missions and glide slopes are. That's why fighters punch out on engine issues most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
They should just mount laser defense systems to the noses of planes that vaporize any objects in the forward vicinity of the aircraft. original idea, donut steal; defense contractors and aerospace companies hmu
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:Props are more susceptible. Less blades means bigger imbalance and inability to windmill leading to altitude loss from parasitic drag of the prop. you were talking about loudness of engines, so I posted the loudest of planes. sorry I'm not trying to derail and I do not know anything about aeronautics, but thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:Engines are bird tested and medium flocking bird is the most challenging test due to the risk of knocking out more fan blades than expected. Lots of fighters use turbofans, such as the F-15, 16, and 22. Just for the record. I used to think the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Lots of fighters use turbofans, such as the F-15, 16, and 22. Just for the record. I used to think the same thing. OK, many. Samuel L. Hacksaw fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:'Causing' in the sense that the pilot was so badly trained that a bird strike made him hit the 'drop everything' button or in the sense that the bird strike made the pods unsafe? "Causing" in the sense that the engine damage caused such a loss of power that you want to drop extra weight so that you can stay in the air longer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:I can't even imagine what it must have been like driving one of these through a forest. Is that what they call her now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
I don't think any modern fighter still uses turbojets. They all use turbofans (+afterburner if it's a supersonic plane) as they're far more fuel efficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:They also had the cab about 5m past the front wheels. I can't even imagine what it must have been like driving one of these through a forest. <Mom Joke>Content Here</Mom Joke>
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I don't think any modern fighter still uses turbojets. They all use turbofans (+afterburner if it's a supersonic plane) as they're far more fuel efficient. It's all a spectrum anyway. Airliner turbofans have huge bypass ratios and most of the thrust comes from the fan. Supersonic fighter turbofans have relatively low bypass ratios, with the majority of the thrust coming from the jet core and the fan system just a nod to efficiency in cruise. The turbofan engine used on the YF-17, the predecessor and prototype for the F/A-18, had such a low bypass ratio the engineers described it as a "leaky turbojet."
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:"leaky turbojet." Don't doxx my porn days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
A hard night drinking with some 2AM Taco Bell and I go all Sagebrush posted:"leaky turbojet." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I don't think any modern fighter still uses turbojets. They all use turbofans (+afterburner if it's a supersonic plane) as they're far more fuel efficient. The F-5 is still in use along with the similar T-38 fighter trainer. They both use the J85 turbojet. That's about the only fighter that I can think of. They still get used in missiles and some niche executive jets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Really the spectrum goes even further. A turboprop is a gas turbine driving a huge open propeller with 3-5 blades and all of the thrust comes from the propeller. A propfan is a gas turbine driving a smaller open propeller with 8-12 blades and basically all of the thrust comes from the propeller, though perhaps the turbine exhaust jet is pointed backwards for bonus thrust. A turbofan is a gas turbine driving an even smaller fully enclosed propeller with 20-50 blades and anywhere from 90 to 30 percent of the thrust comes from propeller, with the rest coming from the turbine jet. A turbojet is a gas turbine driving multiple very small staged propellers with up to hundreds of blades in total that only compress air into the combustion chamber and produce no direct thrust, all of the engine thrust coming from the turbine jet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
Gonna invest all of my money in JETPROP companies, it is the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Really the spectrum goes even further. There's also (high/ultra)bypass turbofans that are those things hanging off the wings of your airliner. Most of the air goes around the jet engine pushed by the big fans. Turboshaft too, if you believe in helicopters. Essentially a turboprop stood on end and driving the rotor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Harry_Potato posted:A hard night drinking with some 2AM Taco Bell and I go all
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 21:22
|
|
