Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Jet planes and bird strikes

I was reading an article about a United Airlines jet today, that had an engine flame out after ingesting a bird while taking off from O'hare. Shouldn't those engines be designed by now so that a bird strike won't really affect them?
They should emit a certain frequency noise that only birds could pick up on and be a deterrent
Other than that, there’s not much that can be done to keep out of the substantial air intake flow path… those jet engines pull in massive amounts and forces of air
@windinhishair yeah
Understandable that airports do that for take offs.. take off air thrust induction is massive
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@SW-User Bird/Wildlife Air Strike Hazard (BASH) Plans are required for military facilities that include airport or helicopter activity and address risks and mitigation efforts for takeoffs and landings. I'm not familiar with the civilian equivalent, but would not be surprised if the FAA requires similar planning.
Turtlepower · 36-40, M
@windinhishair They do. To get FAA certification you need to prove containment after a bird strike.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Good question. I spent about 8K hours in the front end of airplanes and had a handful of bird strikes, Thankfully none that shattered the windschield or into an engine, though a couple that cracked the windshield. Another that put a one or two inch dent in the wing. All of that at pretty low speeds, like 150-175 knots or slower. When approached dead on they usually follow the airflow and you get a glancing blow. A direct hit and higher speeds and they will penetrate the aircraft. I recall a T-33 took a direct hit with a large bird at about 230 knots and the bird ended up at the pilot's feet. Also astronaut Ted Freeman was killed in a T-38 when he struck a bird, I believe he was flying in the Houston/Galveston area, so probably 230Knots+ and likely a seagull size bird.

At low speed and dead on, you might get a 1 second warning, and maybe a chance to duck under the control panel, though there's not much protection there.

The risk of bird strikes is one of the reasons for the 250 knot speed restriction below 10,000 feet. Also windshields are thick, really thick, and heated. And supposedly the heat makes them sort of pliable so to prevent the birds from penetrating. I've yet to hear or see anything to prevent them from flying into the engines, except actions taken by the airports to monitor for bird activity and delaying takeoffs, or firing some sort of air canons to scare them away.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
So far, given the physics of the large engines, it has been impossible to make them immune from bird strikes.
Penny · 46-50, F
@windinhishair they cant put a screen over it?
latinbutterfly · 46-50, F
@Penny Problem with that is if the screen is worn, a piece of it could probably come off and get sucked into the engine.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Penny I'm sure they have thought of that. The amount of air those engines require is huge, and a screen would significantly decrease the amount of air that could easily pass through the turbine blades. I haven't seen their reasoning or calculations, but I assume the loss of power that would create makes that impractical.
I think the fan blades themselves are surprisingly resilient, as they've test fired frozen turkeys into engines as large as the GE 90, running on a test stand.

The flame-out situation seems to occur when ingested into the combustion chamber, rather than being shredded in the by-pass section. Melting the components.
The case with the miracle on the Hudson strike.

With all we've accomplished --windshear detection, EVS Head up displays for weather approaches using SWIR technology, etc; surely flameout incidents can be solved.
Whether by electronic blocks-as some have suggested, or a reengineering of the nacelle.
Turtlepower · 36-40, M
It doesn't work that way. Modern engines are designed for fuel efficiency and weight reduction. They're designed to withstand a bird strike and contain the damage without allowing it to cause the rest of the engine to be destroyed, but not to just eat a bird with no damage.
LunarOrbit · 56-60, M
@Turtlepower This. :)
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Turtlepower That's reasonable. Containment is probably the goal. Compared to what could happen if the engine disintegrated and scattered the parts, just an engine failure isn't so bad.

I once saw the after effect of an inflight tire exposion on a C-130. It slung shrapnel into one of the propellers resulting in one propeller blade being thrown into the fuselage, slicing through the cabin like a can opener. Luckily an empty airplane, and the kindness of divine mercy that they were able to land, leaking fuel, no hydraulic pressure, gear up.
i don't know why i find this funny but i do feel bad for the bird
it seems to be at least a decades old problem. I left O'Hare on Tuesday, and -- bellevue it or not -- my plan was stranded between the gate and the runway because the "tug" , which moves it backwards from the gate, ran out of gas. So we sat there for 20 more minutes. would have had more sympathy if it were a bird strike.
Piper · 61-69, F
It does seem like there [b]should[/b] to be a way to prevent this, but it seems there isn't so far. I've had a similar kind of thought about about boat propellers.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
PETA will soon be suing the airline and the manufacturers... Please send them $19.00 today
MarineBob · 56-60, M
More damage = more $$$$ for the manufacturer
latinbutterfly · 46-50, F
@MarineBob Very true.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
LunarOrbit · 56-60, M
Deer of the skies

Post Comment
403 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Forum Members