LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAgreed. I did my PPL when I was (a lot) younger on Cessna 150's and 152's. You have a LOT of thinking time because the aircraft is more forgiving (huge wing and loads of lift)Originally Posted by Skii
Agreed. I did my PPL when I was (a lot) younger on Cessna 150's and 152's. You have a LOT of thinking time because the aircraft is more forgiving (huge wing and loads of lift)
Hehe I love comments like "it probably caused a fire in the engine" from wannabes.
Having worked for Roll Royce in Bristol (military not civil) for a number of years I can certainly tell you that a bird strike does severe damage to the fan/compressor. If severe enough then the combustion chamber is starved of air and a flame out occurs. i.e. the engine stalls.
All engine designs have to pass a "bird strike test" to qualify for flight. Each engine is different but they should only lose a certain percentage of thrust during a strike. These guys, like as I said, were unlucky.
btw blueball - what were you flying out of Gibraltar? Tornado?
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Jesus i never thought a lone bird would do that.
yeah...frozen onesDo jets engines ever survive bird indigestion, in test or otherwise, and is it true they fire chickens at them
/back in time to old joke time
/back in time to old joke time
/waves hands down screen
OK.....I have no idea at all about flying a jet with or without an engine.
But trading speed for height makes sense.
E-fighting becomes E-escape tactics
yes they do survive - that's what the test is for - ramp up the engine to take of thrust and fire a bird at it and see what happens. It should only lose x% of thrust for y time and keep going enough for the pilot to turn around and land.
I'm sure the CAA has a manual dictating size and type of bird to fire. I've seen footage and it's very messy but also midly amusing.
http://100.rolls-royce.com/videos/in...e=broad&id=616
Actually there was a very famous case of a technician at a certain manufacturer carrying out a bird strike test without reading the manual and defrosting the bird first.
It destroyed everything.
"The force on a fan blade at take-off is equivalent to a load of almost 100 tonnes. This is equivalent to hanging a main-line diesel locomotive or a Boeing 757 on each blade." For a Civil trent 500 engine.
Last edited by iranu; 30-09-2005 at 06:48 PM.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Thats the joke, the UK lent the US some bird strike test equipment, they sent back a report saying it'd done a shed laod of damage etc etc, we sent them a fax back saying defrost the chicken....
Buccaneer - old fashioned, made to last, honest to goodness british, classic
Love Buccs - if I ever have the money I'm going to Thunder CityBuccaneer - old fashioned, made to last, honest to goodness british, classic
Used to have a customer next to the scrapyard in Elgin - seeing all those cut up Buccs would break your heart
I believe that the guys test flying the Tornado avionics on a Bucc didn't see the need to get a new airframe ...
When I was in the ATC yeears ago I was talking to a guy that used to back seat a bucc n was the guy in the plane behind the one that crashed somewhere or other when they were all flying below rooftop level..
Buccs certainly were a classic (once a decent engine was installed). Originally designed for low level attacks on soviet cruisers using nuclear weapons!!
They even saw service in the Gulf War in 1990 which is a testament to the original design. The problem with any aircraft frame is that they are only designed for a set lifetime. Along with engine development (RB199 for the Tornado at the time - mid 70's) and increased maintenance costs as the aircraft ages makes the older designs obsolete.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Tell that to theB-52 - they are expected to be in service 80 years after they entered!
(but yup, most Buccs airframes were time-expired - all that low level work is hard)
some good buccaneer reading
One of the best planes ever.
Yup, and also delivered the odd bomb themselves
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep..._buccaneer.htm
Nice picture. Taken on Tain Range IIRC.
Aircraft lifetimes are based on number of cycles i.e. one takeoff and landing constituting a cycle. So lifetimes depend on how may sorties you carry out per year.
When I worked in repair engineering on RB199 engine for teh tornado the engine would last 300 hrs between overhaul. So it would last 2+ years with the Italian airforce and only 1 with the RAF due to the number of flying hours used in training and keeping pilot hours up.
Also with a fighter the fighter is going through a much higher stress/fatigue cycle than say a b52/commercial jet due to teh nature of the aircraft. ditto for the engines so they don't last as long.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
