PK of Igla vs. airliner?

[Raptor]

Little missile, big-ish airplane.

Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
stop me from flying.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Jim Yanik]

Raptor > wrote in :

> Little missile, big-ish airplane.
>
> Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
> proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
> stop me from flying.
>

But many other people sure would stop flying.
And the PK depends on how the SAMs are used,what point in the flight the
SAM is launched,like landing/takeoff,low and slow.Recovery from loss of an
engine during TO/landing is much more difficult than during regular flight
at altitude.

Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> Raptor > wrote in :
>
> > Little missile, big-ish airplane.
> >
> > Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
> > proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
> > stop me from flying.
> >
>
> But many other people sure would stop flying.
> And the PK depends on how the SAMs are used,what point in the flight the
> SAM is launched,like landing/takeoff,low and slow.Recovery from loss of an
> engine during TO/landing is much more difficult than during regular flight
> at altitude.
>
> Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
> run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)

Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish bankrupting
the system.

[Bill Shatzer]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Tarver Engineering wrote:


> Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish bankrupting
> the system.

Yeah, ya' gotta watch out for those Finns.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>
> > Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish
bankrupting
> > the system.
>
> Yeah, ya' gotta watch out for those Finns.

The Brits are the bad guys in this one.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> >But many other people sure would stop flying.
>
> In huge quantities, they'd stop. We've already seen an
> excellent model starting on 9/12/01. The media furor will be every bit
> as effective as if they ran "don't fly" commercials.
>
> >Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
> >run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)
>
> Cheaper than what, I'm not sure. (tongue in cheek)
>
> The fit is going to run somewhere around $3M per 'liner, from
> some of the projections I've seen (I think they're talking about the
> soon to be fielded Rafael kit). This won't just apply to the big
> birds, either. Smaller jets like the RJ will also be fitted, I'm sure
> - perhaps even the larger commuter turboprops (can you imagine the
> lawsuits if someone pops a puddlejumper that wasn't protected due to a
> cost/benefit analysis ? The corporate risk management people will push
> this if nobody else does).
>
> But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
> afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.
>
> One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.

For the short term: less people flying -> lower airplane ticket prices and
then, you won't be able to fly most places at all.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:30:15 GMT, the renowned
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

>
> But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
>afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.

Presumably this would affect the carriers that fly a lot of regional
jets or turboprops more than carriers that have a lot of jumbos. But
carriers that have a lot of overseas routes (poss. except to/from the
UK) would suffer from people just shifting their business to non-US
(and probably non-UK) carriers. US carriers are generally cheaper and
less full than Asian carriers on the same routes already.

> One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.
> A lot.

Not necessarily. It doesn't help that oil is still ~$30/barrel even
though the economy is sluggish and the invasion of Iraq went
relatively well.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Jim Yanik]

(John S. Shinal) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>>But many other people sure would stop flying.
>
> In huge quantities, they'd stop. We've already seen an
> excellent model starting on 9/12/01. The media furor will be every bit
> as effective as if they ran "don't fly" commercials.
>
>>Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the
>>long run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short
>>run.(IMO.)
>
> Cheaper than what, I'm not sure. (tongue in cheek)
>
> The fit is going to run somewhere around $3M per 'liner, from
> some of the projections I've seen (I think they're talking about the
> soon to be fielded Rafael kit). This won't just apply to the big
> birds, either. Smaller jets like the RJ will also be fitted, I'm sure
> - perhaps even the larger commuter turboprops (can you imagine the
> lawsuits if someone pops a puddlejumper that wasn't protected due to a
> cost/benefit analysis ? The corporate risk management people will push
> this if nobody else does).
>
> But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
> afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.
>
> One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.
>
> A lot.

There's a 'poll' on CNN on this;
if all planes were fitted with missile defense;

40% would pay more for a tix
60% would not pay more.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[Bill Silvey]

> wrote in message
om
> FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere between
> 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured. Therefore, I'd
> imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
> two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out. But today on
> CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like BS to me.

Say, where's our little buddy Tamas? I'm sure he'd like to jump in and let
us all know how he feels about civilians trying to defend themselves from
SAMs...

(For those who may or may not know, he's flat out said that civilian
airliners that try to evade or defend themselves from SAMs should be shot
down.)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Leadfoot]

.. Good luck gaining altitude with one out.

Damnit. You don't GET IT!!!!

It's not just the loss of the engine, it's the shredding of vital
componenets all along the rear of the wing that takes the plane down.

If you'd ever had a CLOSE look at all the crap that runs all along the rear
of a wing of a commercial airliner you'd lnow what I'd mean. The aileron
and flaps don't work so good with hydraulic lines shredded.

..

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> ) wrote in
> om:
>
> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere between
> > 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured. Therefore, I'd
> > imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
> > two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out. But today on
> > CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like BS to me.
>
> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya attempt used
> TWO missiles.

Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines very well.

[John S. Shinal]

"Leadfoot" wrote:

>It's not just the loss of the engine, it's the shredding of vital
>componenets all along the rear of the wing that takes the plane down.
>
>If you'd ever had a CLOSE look at all the crap that runs all along the rear
>of a wing of a commercial airliner you'd lnow what I'd mean. The aileron
>and flaps don't work so good with hydraulic lines shredded.

Indeed, if we're talking about SE climb, we're wincing and
looking at the best possible case. A fuel and hydraulic fire seems a
lot more likely, plus the control failure you note.

Q : are the hydraulic systems isolated left and right ? So
that a hit on one side doesn't cause immediate failure of the other
side ? I'm wondering if still having one working aileron might leave
enough control authority so that another Al Haynes might yet get it
down somewhat intact.

Q : Do any large airliners run these essential systems near
mid wing or toward the front by the spar ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Glasø]

"Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
.. .
> ) wrote in
> om:
>
> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere between
> > 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured. Therefore, I'd
> > imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
> > two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out. But today on
> > CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like BS to me.
>
> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya attempt used
> TWO missiles.

Terrorists learn as well,they might do better the next time.The attack in
Kenya was poorly carried out.The next attack will probably against an
aircraft on final approach,and at a closer range.Or imagine the damage a
small group of RPG-armed terrorist could do if they crashed through the
fence at a major airport in a pickup truck,and started blasting away at all
the aircraft in sight.Or a few men armed with 0.50 cal. sniper rifles -
readily available in the US.The possibilities are endless.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines very well.

Given the conditions of a low-speed, low-altitude, non-maneuvering target, at a
high thrust setting (characteristics of an airliner just after takeoff) and from
the rear quarter, they'll probably do better than you give them credit for...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines very well.
>
> Given the conditions of a low-speed, low-altitude, non-maneuvering target,
at a
> high thrust setting (characteristics of an airliner just after takeoff)
and from
> the rear quarter, they'll probably do better than you give them credit
for...

Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
understand.

[Robert Briggs]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish
> > bankrupting the system.
>
> Yeah, ya' gotta watch out for those Finns.

ISTM that a better use of the money would be to pay the Norwegians
for some of their ground radar equipment - and get it up and running
rather more quickly than the Italians did ...

[Raptor]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
> turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
> engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
> temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
> understand.

How many shots is that, roughly?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Jim Yanik]

"Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
> .. .
>> ) wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere
>> > between 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured.
>> > Therefore, I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1.
>> > Most of them have two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with
>> > one out. But today on CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like
>> > BS to me.
>>
>> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya attempt
>> used TWO missiles.
>
> Terrorists learn as well,they might do better the next time.The attack
> in Kenya was poorly carried out.The next attack will probably against
> an aircraft on final approach,and at a closer range.Or imagine the
> damage a small group of RPG-armed terrorist could do if they crashed
> through the fence at a major airport in a pickup truck,and started
> blasting away at all the aircraft in sight.Or a few men armed with
> 0.50 cal. sniper rifles - readily available in the US.The
> possibilities are endless.
>
>
>

There should be anti-vehicle ditches(filled with gators! 8-) ) around every
airport.
Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
damage.


--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[Jim Yanik]

Raptor > wrote in :

> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective
>> agiainst turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every
>> shot on high bypass engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the
>> difference in discharge temperatures for the two different types of
>> engines and I think you will understand.
>
> How many shots is that, roughly?
>

I believe the Igla(and Stinger) has a MODERN,high-sensitivity,cooled
seeker,and would track on high-bypass engine exhausts.
They're still pretty hot.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[John Keeney]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
> > .. .
> >> ) wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere
> >> > between 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured.
> >> > Therefore, I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1.
> >> > Most of them have two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with
> >> > one out. But today on CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like
> >> > BS to me.
> >>
> >> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya attempt
> >> used TWO missiles.
> >
> > Terrorists learn as well,they might do better the next time.The attack
> > in Kenya was poorly carried out.The next attack will probably against
> > an aircraft on final approach,and at a closer range.Or imagine the
> > damage a small group of RPG-armed terrorist could do if they crashed
> > through the fence at a major airport in a pickup truck,and started
> > blasting away at all the aircraft in sight.Or a few men armed with
> > 0.50 cal. sniper rifles - readily available in the US.The
> > possibilities are endless.
> >
> >
> >
>
> There should be anti-vehicle ditches(filled with gators! 8-) ) around
every
> airport.
> Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
> magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
> critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
> damage.

Aim for the cockpit from along the flight path: high probability of
escape if the plane doesn't fall on you and if it does, well, a plane
load of tourist seems worth dyeing for to a lot of jihadist.

You may be right about the antivehical ditch, not so sure about
the gators.

[B2431]

>
>There should be anti-vehicle ditches(filled with gators! 8-) ) around every
>airport.
>Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
>magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
>critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
>damage.
>
>
>--
>Jim Yanik,NRA member
>remove null to contact me
>

Take your Barret, hide in the weeds 1/4 mile from the end of the runway and put
one shot in each intake as the airplane lifts off. Difficult shots, but not
impossible.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Glasø]

"Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
.. .
> "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
> > .. .
> >> ) wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere
> >> > between 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured.
> >> > Therefore, I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1.
> >> > Most of them have two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with
> >> > one out. But today on CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like
> >> > BS to me.
> >>
> >> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya attempt
> >> used TWO missiles.
> >
> > Terrorists learn as well,they might do better the next time.The attack
> > in Kenya was poorly carried out.The next attack will probably against
> > an aircraft on final approach,and at a closer range.Or imagine the
> > damage a small group of RPG-armed terrorist could do if they crashed
> > through the fence at a major airport in a pickup truck,and started
> > blasting away at all the aircraft in sight.Or a few men armed with
> > 0.50 cal. sniper rifles - readily available in the US.The
> > possibilities are endless.
> >
> >
> >
>
> There should be anti-vehicle ditches(filled with gators! 8-) ) around
every
> airport.
> Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
> magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
> critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
> damage.

Not if they use ammo like the Norwegian Raufoss multi-pupose round,it has
explosive,fragmentation and incendiary effects as well as an armour piercing
slug.And it is readily available in the US.You can buy a 0.50 cal. sniper
rifle for just over 1000$ - the terrorists wouldn't even have to smuggle
weapons in to the country,just buy them there!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/50_cal.asp


Check out the picture of the fragmentation test of the raufoss round here:

http://www.barrettrifles.com/test_explosive.html

[Raptor]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Raptor" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective
>>
> agiainst
>
>>>turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high
>>
> bypass
>
>>>engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
>>>temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
>>>understand.
>>
>>How many shots is that, roughly?
>
>
> One, all the engines are clustered together; nice and hot.

I meant, how many shots have been taken (and missed) at high bypass engines?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Jim Yanik]

"John Keeney" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Jim Yanik" > skrev i melding
>> > .. .
>> >> ) wrote in
>> >> om:
>> >>
>> >> > FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere
>> >> > between 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured.
>> >> > Therefore, I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1.
>> >> > Most of them have two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude
>> >> > with one out. But today on CNN I read it's about 50/50 which
>> >> > sound like BS to me.
>> >>
>> >> Of course that PK is for *one* SAM fired. ISTR that the Kenya
>> >> attempt used TWO missiles.
>> >
>> > Terrorists learn as well,they might do better the next time.The
>> > attack in Kenya was poorly carried out.The next attack will
>> > probably against an aircraft on final approach,and at a closer
>> > range.Or imagine the damage a small group of RPG-armed terrorist
>> > could do if they crashed through the fence at a major airport in a
>> > pickup truck,and started blasting away at all the aircraft in
>> > sight.Or a few men armed with 0.50 cal. sniper rifles - readily
>> > available in the US.The possibilities are endless.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> There should be anti-vehicle ditches(filled with gators! 8-) ) around
> every
>> airport.
>> Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10
>> round magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as
>> hitting something critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and
>> out the other,very little damage.
>
> Aim for the cockpit from along the flight path: high probability of
> escape if the plane doesn't fall on you and if it does, well, a plane
> load of tourist seems worth dyeing for to a lot of jihadist.
>
> You may be right about the antivehical ditch, not so sure about
> the gators.
>
>
>

Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away at
the thought of being a gator's dinner.

But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
Still not an easy task.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away at
> the thought of being a gator's dinner.

I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
gator tail to be delicious.

> But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
> frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
> Still not an easy task.

Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

[Peter Glasø]

"Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
...
>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away
at
> > the thought of being a gator's dinner.
>
> I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
> gator tail to be delicious.
>
> > But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
> > frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
> > Still not an easy task.
>
> Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile with 0.50
cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards should be
no problem - especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine.One
could do it while the aircraft is on the ground.Would an airliner like the
747 survive an explosive,incendiary round hitting a fuel tank? One would
think that the fumes in a near empty tank of an aircraft who has just landed
would ignite immediatly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away
> at
> > > the thought of being a gator's dinner.
> >
> > I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
> > gator tail to be delicious.
> >
> > > But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and
the
> > > frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
> > > Still not an easy task.
> >
> > Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
>
> Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile with
0.50
> cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards should
be
> no problem -

Although a 50 cal is an acceptable 1000 yard shooter for stationary targets,
what you posted seems to be a fantasy, Peter. The 747 will be traveling
over 2 miles a minute at approach.

> especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine.

OK. :)

You have never been around a 50, have you?

[Peter Glasø]

"Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
...
>
> "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy
away
> > at
> > > > the thought of being a gator's dinner.
> > >
> > > I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found
fried
> > > gator tail to be delicious.
> > >
> > > > But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and
> the
> > > > frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving
target.
> > > > Still not an easy task.
> > >
> > > Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
> >
> > Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile with
> 0.50
> > cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards
should
> be
> > no problem -
>
> Although a 50 cal is an acceptable 1000 yard shooter for stationary
targets,
> what you posted seems to be a fantasy, Peter. The 747 will be traveling
> over 2 miles a minute at approach.
>
> > especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine.
>
> OK. :)
>
> You have never been around a 50, have you?

I was a 0.50 gunner in the army.Not the sniper versions though,the old M2 on
an anti-aircraft mount.And i meant shooting at taxiing aircraft,not while
they're doing 300 kmph, in the air.But if close enough,it shouldn't be
"impossible" to hit a 747 during take off,or landing either - it is a HUGE
aircraft.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

If the target is an airplane, it would be more a matter of skill than luck.

At 120 knots, an object is moving about 200 feet per second. At a range of "a
few hundred yards" (1,000', for a round number), the time of flight for a round
from any modern, high-power rifle would be much less than a second. For
example, a .223 round from an AR-15 or M-16 has a muzzle velocity of 2500-3000
fps, depending on the specific load. The .300 Wby Mag has a muzzle velocity of
2900-3400 fps. Time of flight to 1,000' would be less than 1/2 second.

For a crossing shot on a 747, a lead of less than 100' would be required. Aim
at the nose, and the bullet would still impact the middle of the fuselage (or
the wing section that masks the fuselage). After a couple bracketing shots, a
marksman could easily put 8 rounds from a 10-round clip into the center fuselage
and/or wing section.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away
> at
> > > the thought of being a gator's dinner.
> >
> > I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
> > gator tail to be delicious.
> >
> > > But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and
the
> > > frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
> > > Still not an easy task.
> >
> > Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
>
> Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile with
0.50
> cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards should
be
> no problem - especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round
magazine.One
> could do it while the aircraft is on the ground.Would an airliner like the
> 747 survive an explosive,incendiary round hitting a fuel tank? One would
> think that the fumes in a near empty tank of an aircraft who has just
landed
> would ignite immediatly.

One would be wrong, the temperature in those tanks will be very low.

The risk, as seen in the case of TWA800 and the 737 that blew up at
the gate in Manila is when an empty tank has been sitting in the sun all
day.

Keith
is hot after sitting in the su

[John R Weiss]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote...
>
> ISTR that expert machine gunners in the USN had a hell of
> a job shooting down small fragile Japanese aircraft flying
> right over their heads after dropping torpedoes.
>
> More over lots of highly motivated soldiers from WW1 onwards
> have fire their rifles at aircraft attacking them without much
> success for the most part
>
> Forgive me if I'm a little sceptical about the idea of snipers shooting
> down 747's


The discussion was regarding hitting the target, not shooting down the airplane.
However...

What is the purpose of terrorism? Maybe to instill widespread terror in the
public?

First, the 747 is significantly larger than a WWII torpedo bomber. Second,
immediately after takeoff or on the landing approach it is flying a predictable
path at a relatively slow speed. Third, the terrorists, who will likely be just
as expert and motivated as the WWII gunners, will not be under attack when they
try something like this. Finally, they will have the luxuries of a prolonged
planning period and of picking the time, place, and aspect angle for the attack.

The probability of hitting a 747 under those conditions is significantly higher
than that of hitting a torpedo bomber. Further, they need not "shoot down" the
airliner to accomplish their purpose, but "only" cause enough visible damage so
that their presence is made known.

[John Halliwell]

In article <9Nz%a.131756$cF.34159@rwcrnsc53>, John R Weiss <jrweiss98155
@?.comNOSPAMcast.net> writes
>The probability of hitting a 747 under those conditions is significantly higher
>than that of hitting a torpedo bomber. Further, they need not "shoot down" the
>airliner to accomplish their purpose, but "only" cause enough visible damage so
>that their presence is made known.

About a decade ago, the IRA managed to lob some home made mortars over
the fence at Heathrow, might even have hit a taxiway or runway. They
didn't hit an aircraft, not sure if they were aiming to (I don't
remember hearing much about any aircraft in the vicinity). Certainly
attracted attention though.

--
John

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in message
...

<snip>

> > You have never been around a 50, have you?
>
> I was a 0.50 gunner in the army.Not the sniper versions though,the old M2
on
> an anti-aircraft mount.And i meant shooting at taxiing aircraft,not while
> they're doing 300 kmph, in the air.But if close enough,it shouldn't be
> "impossible" to hit a 747 during take off,or landing either - it is a HUGE
> aircraft.

This thread has progressed from taking out an engine to hittinbg the broad
side of a barn, with a 50 cal. Even then, at one shot per pull, your
chances of hitting that barn at 3 miles a minute are poor.

[Jim Yanik]

"Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in
:

>
> "Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @ broadpark.no> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Tarver Engineering" > skrev i melding
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people
>> > > > shy
> away
>> > at
>> > > > the thought of being a gator's dinner.
>> > >
>> > > I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I
>> > > found
> fried
>> > > gator tail to be delicious.
>> > >
>> > > > But the chance of hitting something critical still is very
>> > > > small,and
>> the
>> > > > frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving
> target.
>> > > > Still not an easy task.
>> > >
>> > > Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure
>> > > luck.
>> >
>> > Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile
>> > with
>> 0.50
>> > cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards
> should
>> be
>> > no problem -
>>
>> Although a 50 cal is an acceptable 1000 yard shooter for stationary
> targets,
>> what you posted seems to be a fantasy, Peter. The 747 will be
>> traveling over 2 miles a minute at approach.
>>
>> > especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine.
>>
>> OK. :)
>>
>> You have never been around a 50, have you?
>
> I was a 0.50 gunner in the army.Not the sniper versions though,the old
> M2 on an anti-aircraft mount.And i meant shooting at taxiing
> aircraft,not while they're doing 300 kmph, in the air.But if close
> enough,it shouldn't be "impossible" to hit a 747 during take off,or
> landing either - it is a HUGE aircraft.
>
>
>

Well,so what.Even Raufoss ammo is not 'super ammo' that destroys everything
in its path. And the frontal area of an aircraft is much smaller than it's
side profile,and the chances of hitting a VITAL item is much smaller,too.
TO is around or over 150 MPH,I believe.150-180 at least.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[[email protected]]

You absolutely do not need .50 to penetrate an aircraft skin. A
regular 7.62 NATO, not even AP, should do nicely. And there is a whole
lot more MG's in that and similar Warpac calibers that are out there,
than 50's. And there are AA MG's too. That to me would pose a greater
risk of actually bringing a liner down. Though you have to be a lot
closer than a click. But in most cases you can be directly under the
flightpath of very low flying jets. Shooting a 767 with a .50 to get a
hit in the midsection somewhere, seems like a waste of time.

[B2431]

>Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by small
arms. Should we tell him?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
>
> Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
small
> arms. Should we tell him?

Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by small
arms fire. :)

[Leadfoot]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> "Leadfoot" wrote:
>
> >It's not just the loss of the engine, it's the shredding of vital
> >componenets all along the rear of the wing that takes the plane down.
> >
> >If you'd ever had a CLOSE look at all the crap that runs all along the
rear
> >of a wing of a commercial airliner you'd lnow what I'd mean. The aileron
> >and flaps don't work so good with hydraulic lines shredded.
>
> Indeed, if we're talking about SE climb, we're wincing and
> looking at the best possible case. A fuel and hydraulic fire seems a
> lot more likely, plus the control failure you note.
>
> Q : are the hydraulic systems isolated left and right ? So
> that a hit on one side doesn't cause immediate failure of the other
> side ? I'm wondering if still having one working aileron might leave
> enough control authority so that another Al Haynes might yet get it
> down somewhat intact.

I've been out of the industry for over 5 years so I'm really on aincient
(64KB ;-) memor\y

There is really good isolation in the fuselage, however as space gets more
confined as in the trailing edge of a wing everything gets closer and closer
together. Most of my experience is with 747 and L-1011's which have more
than 2 separate system which means you have more redundancy ro play with

As for whether you can effectively fly with one aileron out you'd need to
ask a pilot. As I recall most have inboard and outboard ailerons which are
always on different hydraulic sytems


>
> Q : Do any large airliners run these essential systems near
> mid wing or toward the front by the spar ?

Not much choice you run the lines where they need to go. Mid-wing generally
is part of the gas tank. If you are sitting over the center wing box in the
fuselage of a 747 you are generally sitting over 50,000 pounds of fuel. I do
recall the AC generator lines do not get run in the trailing edge but in the
leading edge


>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[John R Weiss]

"Leadfoot" > wrote...
>
> As for whether you can effectively fly with one aileron out you'd need to
> ask a pilot. As I recall most have inboard and outboard ailerons which are
> always on different hydraulic sytems

All modern airliners are designed such that they can be safely controlled with
one hydraulic system totally inoperative.

[B2431]

>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
>>
>> Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
>small
>> arms. Should we tell him?
>
>Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by small
>arms fire. :)

Did I say "airliner?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > If the target is an airplane, it would be more a matter of skill than
> > luck.
> >
> > Even with a lot of skill, you aren't going to hit a flying 747 engine
with a
> > 50 cal, except by luck.
>
> Here we go again... Tarver realizes his previous statements are pure BS,
but
> instead of retracting them or admitting his error, he simply changes the
topic
> and/or parameters in mid stream...

No John Weiss, it is you that changed the subject, one having to do with the
striking the engine compressor with a sholder fired 50 cal. I do wish you
would work on your reading and comprehenbsion, Weiss.

> Initially, the target was an airplane, the weapon was a high-power rifle,
and
> the range was a few hundred yards. Now, according to Tarver, we're
reduced to a
> 747 engine, a "50 cal," and 1000 yards...

Nope, the discussion is tied to a URL for a specific exploding ammunition in
50 calibre. The fact that you can't read is not a reason for you to become
insulting, Weiss.

> Still, I contend that a skilled marksman or sniper, after a reasonable
amount of
> specific training and practice, could consistently hit an engine on a 747
flying
> at 120 knots, on a stable path perpendicular to the bullet path, from a
range of
> 1,000'.

LOL

First you can't read and then you have a brain fart.

> > > At 120 knots, an object is moving about 200 feet per second. At a
range of "a
> > > few hundred yards" (1,000', for a round number),
> >
> > 1000 yards is about the effective range of the weapon, on a stationary
> > target.
>
> So, the stated range is well inside the effective range -- not a problem!

Big problem, as the flying airplane is well outside the parameters of
"stationary".

> > >the time of flight for a round
> > > from any modern, high-power rifle would be much less than a second.
> >
> > With the target moving at 200 feet a second there is little chance of
> > hitting an engine.
>
> When the target is at a nominal range of 1000 feet, the crossing angle
rate is
> just over 11 degrees per second, well within the capability of a marksman
to
> follow a target in stable flight and hold aim on a target several feet
high and
> several feet wide.

Lead becomes the problem and I think you know I lowballed the airspeed.

> What is the crossing rate of the clay pigeons on a trap or skeet range,
just for
> comparison purposes?

Our skeet expert is Art, so you'll have to ask him.

> > You don't gat a couple of bracketing shots, by then the target is gone.
> > What are you dreaming of Weiss, a 50 cal mounted on a Humvee?
>
> For an engineer, you sure demonstrate a significant lack of capability for
> simple analysis!

I have a real problem with the idea of bracketing shots from a sholder fired
50 caliber at a target traveling at 3 miles a minute. Perhaps you could
head for a shooting range and acquire some knowledge, Weiss.

> The weapon could be "a 50 cal mounted on a Humvee," an M-60 on a bipod, or
a
> shoulder-mounted rifle of almost any description.

No, the thread is specificly about a sholder fired 50 calibre, of which a
single shot and a semi automatic are available to the public, using specific
ammunition and striking the compressor face.

Of course, if we change the subject to some completely different set of
parameters, Weiss might be correct. A tripod mounted 50 calibre machine gun
could do the job.

> Assume a conservative field of fire -- 30 degrees either side of a line
> perpendicular to the flight path. At a perpendicular range of 1000' the
length
> of the flight path within the field of fire is 1154', placing any point on
the
> airplane within the field of fire for 5.77 seconds. That gives the
marksman
> more than sufficient time to accurately place shots.

That should get you all of one shot with a sholder fired 50 calibre, no
bracketing shots there, Weiss.

> A sniper can consistently place shots within a minute of arc. With a
nominal 2'
> cross-section, an aircraft engine subtends almost 7 minutes of arc at
1000'.
> The probability of a skilled marksman hitting a 747 engine with multiple
shots
> from a 10-round clip under the stated conditions is very high. If the
target is
> the airplane instead of just the engine, the probability of multiple hits
> approaches 1.

I think Weiss has us back to a Humvee mounted machine gun.

Of course, Weiss has a habbit of changing the subject such that what he
wrote previously isn't as luney as when it was penned. Educational though.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
> >>
> >> Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
small
> >> arms. Should we tell him?
> >
> >Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by
small
> >arms fire. :)
>
> Did I say "airliner?"

Read the title of the thread, Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Arie Kazachin" > wrote in message
...

Snip>

> Or LOTS of practice. There was a Russian sniper in WWII whose name
> eludes me at this moment (and it's too late to phone a friend of mine,
> shooting instructior who told me the name) who downed a German plane with
a
> rifle by hitting the canopy and killing the pilot. Of corse, such people
are
> very rare but with hundreds of millions of muslims avaliable you might
> find and train few good snipers. Let's hope that after 9/11/2001 FBI
monitors
> not only people participating in flight lessons but also people training
> in sharp-shooting...

So far the terrorists have been upper middle class goofs, so I can't see
them doing this kind of blue collar labor.

Either way, your story is interesting and educational.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> No John Weiss, it is you that changed the subject, one having to do with the
> striking the engine compressor with a sholder fired 50 cal. I do wish you
> would work on your reading and comprehenbsion, Weiss.

Hmmm... Let's look up the thread...

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 6:28 PM
Even with a lot of skill, you aren't going to hit a flying 747 engine with a
50 cal, except by luck.

From: "John R Weiss"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:14 PM
If the target is an airplane, it would be more a matter of skill than luck.

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:15 PM
Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

From: "Jim Yanik"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:24 AM
But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.

From: "John Keeney"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:47 PM
Aim for the cockpit from along the flight path: high probability of
escape if the plane doesn't fall on you and if it does, well, a plane
load of tourist seems worth dyeing for to a lot of jihadist.

From: "Jim Yanik"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:30 PM
Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
damage.

From: "Peter Glasø"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:00 AM
Or a few men armed with 0.50 cal. sniper rifles -
readily available in the US.


The top of this thread, where the "Igla" discussion switched to rifles, said
absolutely nothing about engine compressors. As a matter of fact, your message
of 10:42 AM today is the FIRST that mentions an engine compressor at all!

My reading and comprehension are fine. I doubt yours, though.


> Nope, the discussion is tied to a URL for a specific exploding ammunition in
> 50 calibre. The fact that you can't read is not a reason for you to become
> insulting, Weiss.

I don't know where you got this "URL for a specific exploding ammunition" stuff!
Peter Glaso's Aug 15, 11:00 AM message was the first that mentioned rifles at
all. Nowhere in the thread is there any mention of exploding ammunition or a
URL reference to it.

Again, I can read just fine. If you want to be insulted, I can't stop you.


> First you can't read and then you have a brain fart.
>
> > > 1000 yards is about the effective range of the weapon, on a stationary
target.
> >
> > So, the stated range is well inside the effective range -- not a problem!
>
> Big problem, as the flying airplane is well outside the parameters of
> "stationary".

I have not found a definition of "effective range" for rifle ammunition that is
limited to stationary targets:

What is the definition of Maximum Effective Range?
The greatest distance at which the weapon may be expected to inflict
casualties
http://www.armystudyguide.com/m16/studyguide.htm

MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE- The greatest distance at which a weapon may be
expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties.
http://www.tpub.com/maa/85.htm

EFFECTIVE RANGE
THAT RANGE AT WHICH A WEAPON OR WEAPONS SYSTEM HAS A FIFTY PERCENT
PROBABILITY OF HITTING A TARGET
http://members.aol.com/usmilbrats/glossary/e.htm

effective range means the greatest distance a projectile will travel with
accuracy
http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/nnglossary/termsk_r.pdf and

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/scrd_old/documents/trgc/risk_assess/rgrisk.htm

However, a comprehensive discussion of calculating lead for moving targets can
be found at http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/mildot.htm. According to the
writer, a .308 is an "effective" sniper round against moving targets at 600-800
yards (listed effective range is 800-1000 yards, according to
http://www.snipercentral.com/308.htm). This translates to an effective range
for moving targets that is 75-80% that for stationary targets, and is consistent
with the effective ranges of the Chieftain's 120mm gun against moving and
stationary targets (2000 m vs 3000 m, or 66%;
http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/90-8/90-8ch9.htm); an M72 antitank rocket
(165 meters vs 200 meters, or 82%;
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/law/law.htm); or an RPG-7 (300 m vs 500
m, or 60%; http://www.sof-land.net/index.php?body=sof2wpguide&page=3). It makes
complete sense that the .50 BMG should easily be "effective" against a moving
target at 300 yards -- only 16% of its listed effective range (1800 meters
against equipment size targets;
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m82.htm).

FWIW, "The M82A2 was obviously designed as a cheap anti-helicopter weapon,
suitable for use against highly mobile targets when fired from the shoulder."
(http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn02-e.htm), so the suitability of .50 BMG weapons
in their current form, against moving targets, has been explored in their
development history.

> Lead becomes the problem and I think you know I lowballed the airspeed.

The lead-computation formulae in the alpharubicon discussion above (as well as
others) shows us that lead can be computed in advance for known or expected
targets. Besides, the airspeed is not too low for a small airliner. Further
the airspeed of a 747 on final approach (130-160 knots) or just after takeoff
(140-185 knots) is in the same order of magnitude. At the outside limit (185
knots instead of 120), the time in view for any point of the airplane (using
previously presented parameters) is still 3.65 seconds. A single sniper could
still easily place 4 rounds of a 5-round magazine into the center fuselage or
wing section in that time.


> I have a real problem with the idea of bracketing shots from a sholder fired
> 50 caliber at a target traveling at 3 miles a minute.

I don't doubt that for a second!


> No, the thread is specificly about a sholder fired 50 calibre, of which a
> single shot and a semi automatic are available to the public, using specific
> ammunition and striking the compressor face.

Hardly! None of the initiators of the ".50 cal./.50BMG thread limited the
discussion to "shoulder fired" or "specific ammunition"; a compressor face never
entered the discussion until your mention immediately above.


> Of course, if we change the subject to some completely different set of
> parameters, Weiss might be correct. A tripod mounted 50 calibre machine gun
> could do the job.

No specific parameters were presented other than round, range to target and
airspeed. I merely selected a representative set of parameters as an example
exercise for analysis. The parameters are suitable to a bipod-mounted .50 BMG
"sniper rifle" such as:

Barrett M82A1A equipped with bipod
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m82.htm

Barrett M95
http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/

EDM Windrunner XM107 with M14 bipod
1/2 MOA accuracy
http://www.50-bmg.com/50.htm


> I think Weiss has us back to a Humvee mounted machine gun.

Not yet, though that would substantially increase the number of hits...


> Of course, Weiss has a habbit of changing the subject such that what he
> wrote previously isn't as luney as when it was penned. Educational though.

No change in subject here!

I am more than happy to provide you with the education you must have previously
missed.

[Moramarth]

In article >,
> writes
>You absolutely do not need .50 to penetrate an aircraft skin. A
>regular 7.62 NATO, not even AP, should do nicely.
Frontal aspect might be a bit tougher. ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window.
>
>
>
Cheers,
>

--
Moramarth

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > - "Tarver Engineering" >
writes:
>
>
>"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>> Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away at
>> the thought of being a gator's dinner.
>
>I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
>gator tail to be delicious.
>
>> But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
>> frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
>> Still not an easy task.
>
>Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.
>
>

Or LOTS of practice. There was a Russian sniper in WWII whose name
eludes me at this moment (and it's too late to phone a friend of mine,
shooting instructior who told me the name) who downed a German plane with a
rifle by hitting the canopy and killing the pilot. Of corse, such people are
very rare but with hundreds of millions of muslims avaliable you might
find and train few good snipers. Let's hope that after 9/11/2001 FBI monitors
not only people participating in flight lessons but also people training
in sharp-shooting...



************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[B2431]

>ISTR reading about a hijack
>situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
>the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
>penetrate the cockpit window

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if they
still do that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tex Houston]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >ISTR reading about a hijack
> >situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
> >the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
> >penetrate the cockpit window
>
> That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
tested
> for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
they
> still do that.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The frozen part was inadvertent, thawed birds more closely resembled the
actual live items.

Tex

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >ISTR reading about a hijack
> >situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
> >the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
> >penetrate the cockpit window
>
> That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
tested
> for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
they
> still do that.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Actually when they launched a frozen chicken that was in error.
The birds are suppsoed to be thawed first, frozen chickens
have absolutely no problem penetrating screens, they are
in effect large balls of ice after all.

Keith

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:58:33 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

>On 17 Aug 2003 23:10:59 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>> >ISTR reading about a hijack
>> >situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
>> >the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
>> >penetrate the cockpit window
>>
>> That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been tested
>> for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if they
>> still do that.
>
>Actually, they _thaw_ the chickens first. The story you heard is a
>joke, not an accurate description.
>
>It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
>cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.

Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?

Peter Kemp

[Token]

"Tarver Engineering" > in message
>...
> Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
> turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
> engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
> temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
> understand.

OK ... I have been more or less in lurk mode in this NG for a few
years, think I have posted 5 times in 7 years. But I gotta stick my
foot in this one.

"but have missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles."

I believe the A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the TF34 high-bypass-ratio
turbo fan? How many A-10's got hit during Desert Storm 1 by shoulder
launchhed or IR guided weapons? A hint, far more than one.

Check here for some numbers:
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html

So, I would have to say that the statement that a shoulder launched
missile has never hit a high bypass engined vehicle would be patently
incorrect.

I have not the information on the types of airliners hit by shoulder
launched weapons, but are you saying that of the 29 (since 1973) that
the FBI list as being shot down (not just damaged) not one has used a
high-bypass engine?

T!

[Longtailedlizard]

>>> That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
>tested
>>> for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
>they
>>> still do that.
>>
>>Actually, they _thaw_ the chickens first. The story you heard is a
>>joke, not an accurate description.
>>
>>It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
>>cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.
>
>Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?
>


Here's what unthawed birds do to the fuselage.
It was a 4 day field trip Paris, did'nt see much of Paris except the ramp.
Patched it up, flew it unpressurized and stiff legged all the way back to AFW.

http://www.geocities.com/afwjr/767.html

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.

Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.

Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Token" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > in message
> >...
> > Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective
agiainst
> > turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high
bypass
> > engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
> > temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
> > understand.
>
> OK ... I have been more or less in lurk mode in this NG for a few
> years, think I have posted 5 times in 7 years. But I gotta stick my
> foot in this one.
>
> "but have missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles."
>
> I believe the A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the TF34 high-bypass-ratio
> turbo fan? How many A-10's got hit during Desert Storm 1 by shoulder
> launchhed or IR guided weapons? A hint, far more than one.
>
> Check here for some numbers:
> http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html
>

You must remember to factor in Tarvers Constant

Anytime JT makes a categorical statement of fact regarding
aeronautics he is wrong, it helps resolve many arguments
we just watch way he votes and we know we can discard that option.

Keith

[Token]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.
>
> Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.
>
> Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.



I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.

Your exact complete quote from the messaqe I replied to:

> Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
> turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
> engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
> temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
> understand.


And naturally, in the message just before that one you said (again,
the complete quote here):

> Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines very well.

At no place in either of these messages do I see that you said
"high-bypass-ratio engines on airliners only". I see blanket
statements about high-bypass engines. I see the statement "but have
missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles." I was unaware that
the term "vehicles" was another name specificly and only for
airliners.

Now, a simple statement such as "I meant only as applied to airliners"
would have been a civil and socially acceptable manor of correcting
what you perceived to be an error in my statement. This statement
would have made me respond with something like "OK, I can understand
that, do you have a source that I can check that list all the
airliners shot down by manpads? I mean since you know that no
high-bypass engines have ever been hit, I would like to broaden my
knowledge base and see what have been the most susceptible platforms."

Since you instead chose to jump right in and call me (someone you have
never corresponded with before as far as I know) a "dumbass" I am less
than obliged to believe a word you have typed. So prove it to me you
inconsiderate, uneducated, opinionated piece of trash. Show me a
source that indicates no high-bypass engined vehicle has ever been hit
by a shoulder launched missile.

T!

[Token]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
>
> Flying 30 feet off the ground along a track is not something airliners do.

Are you saying that an A-10 at 30, or even a more realistic 300 feet,
is an easier target for a manpad than an airliner climbing out on
take-off or coming in on final?

T!

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:48:01 -0400, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:58:33 -0700, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:

> >It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
> >cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.
>
> Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?

There was a crew change already scheduled (PanAm from Somewhere to
Heathrow, on which they hit the goose, then PanAm from Heathrow to
LAX, which was delayed eight hours). We were on the London to Los
Angeles flight.

From some of the stories I've heard about PanAm 747 captains, a mere
bird strike wouldn't cause such a reaction. We were on the
next-to-last US flight out of Tehran, the one with people sitting in
the aisles and galleys, so I'm inclined to believe the stories.
Speaking of FAA and the FARs, it was completely legal, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Token" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Flying 30 feet off the ground along a track is not something airliners
do.
>
> Are you saying that an A-10 at 30, or even a more realistic 300 feet,
> is an easier target for a manpad than an airliner climbing out on
> take-off or coming in on final?

You could trow a rock at an A-10 and hit it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Token" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > > Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.
> >
> > Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.
> >
> > Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.
>
>
>
> I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
> also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.

Read the header again and get back with us.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Token" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Token" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > > > > Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.
> > > >
> > > > Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
> > > also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.
> >
> > Read the header again and get back with us.
>
>
> I read the header,

Good..

Thanks for playing.

[John R Weiss]

"Token" > wrote...
>
> I believe the term is "thread creep"? Usenet threads have a tendency
> to wander afield from the original post, but I do not see my posting
> as being very far afield.
>
> Your earlier post "Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines
> very well." would seem to indicate you wished to depart from the
> original thread by introducing the shooting of "heat seakers" at HBPR
> engines (thus broadening the field from Igla since Igla has never
> fired on a commercial HBPR engine).

Possibly your only error here is inferring that Tarver wished to do anything but
confuse the issue in a discussion which has gone way over his head. If you
follow the various threads from the original posting on the subject, you'll
probably figure that out very quickly.

FWIW, I would guess the single-hit Pk is relatively low, though the Ph is very
high (~.8). Pk would depend a lot on the target -- a 747 would be much more
likely to survive than an MD-80, due to number and proximity of engines and
related plumbing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Token" > wrote...
> >
> > I believe the term is "thread creep"? Usenet threads have a tendency
> > to wander afield from the original post, but I do not see my posting
> > as being very far afield.

The term is, "channging the subject so you can be right.

> > Your earlier post "Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines
> > very well." would seem to indicate you wished to depart from the
> > original thread by introducing the shooting of "heat seakers" at HBPR
> > engines (thus broadening the field from Igla since Igla has never
> > fired on a commercial HBPR engine).

On airliners, consistent with the title of the thread. Of course, token
sock, you could have added in your branch to the thread without insisting I
am wrong, but you chose to be a flamer.

> Possibly your only error here is inferring that Tarver wished to do
anything but
> confuse the issue in a discussion which has gone way over his head.

No Weiss, it is a reading and comprehension problem you and the token sock
share. As well as a penchant for changing the subject, so you can be right,
in your own little fantasy world.

[Guy Alcala]

"John S. Shinal" wrote:

> (Token) wrote:
>
> >"but have missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles."
> >
> >I believe the A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the TF34 high-bypass-ratio
> >turbo fan? How many A-10's got hit during Desert Storm 1 by shoulder
> >launchhed or IR guided weapons? A hint, far more than one.
>
> I wonder what the difference in bypass ratio is on the TF34
> compared to common airliner engines (never seen those numbers) ?

BPR of the TF34-GE-100 is 6.2. The CF6-80C2, quite common on airbus and Boeing
widebody twins as well as some 747s and MD-11s, is 5.05. The PW4000, similarly rated
to the CF6-80C2 and used by the same a/c types, is 4.85. Just google on "PW4000 bpr",
or whatever other engine you're interested in, and you'll get several hits.

Guy

[Token]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Token" > wrote...
> > >
> > > I believe the term is "thread creep"? Usenet threads have a tendency
> > > to wander afield from the original post, but I do not see my posting
> > > as being very far afield.
>
> The term is, "channging the subject so you can be right.


Ah...so that is what you do in so many of these threads? Here I
thought it was raising a related point.


>
> > > Your earlier post "Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines
> > > very well." would seem to indicate you wished to depart from the
> > > original thread by introducing the shooting of "heat seakers" at HBPR
> > > engines (thus broadening the field from Igla since Igla has never
> > > fired on a commercial HBPR engine).
>
> On airliners, consistent with the title of the thread. Of course, token
> sock, you could have added in your branch to the thread without insisting I
> am wrong, but you chose to be a flamer.
>


Of course, you have conveniently neglected to mention the other part
of the title of the thread, Igla. I still ask you to produce
information that indicates that an Igla has ever been fired at an HBPR
engined commercial aircraft.

Also, in my original post, please quote what I said that was a flame.

I pointed out that you were wrong about HBPR engines and the Igla, and
to prevent any misunderstanding of what I meant I clearly stated as it
applies to the A-10. I never implied or said that I was trying to
claim anything about airliners.

If I am wrong, and you are correct, provide some information on when
an Igla was fired at an HBPR equipped commercial airliner. If you can
name one it will lend some credibility to what you say, if you can
name two, you will have built a case.


> > Possibly your only error here is inferring that Tarver wished to do
> anything but
> > confuse the issue in a discussion which has gone way over his head.
>
> No Weiss, it is a reading and comprehension problem you and the token sock
> share. As well as a penchant for changing the subject, so you can be right,
> in your own little fantasy world.


"token sock"? That is twice you have directed derogatory comments at
me, in response to nothing but information from me. If I am the sock,
you are my puppet, and I am sure you find sock puppets very amusing.
Even when you are only amusing yourself. Dance puppet, dance.

I have seen you add MSEE/PE to your sig. I never questioned your
right to add such. Now I wonder, how did you manage to defend a
thesis on such incomplete blanket statements?

T!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Token" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "Token" > wrote...
> > > >
> > > > I believe the term is "thread creep"? Usenet threads have a
tendency
> > > > to wander afield from the original post, but I do not see my posting
> > > > as being very far afield.
> >
> > The term is, "channging the subject so you can be right.
>
>
> Ah...so that is what you do in so many of these threads? Here I
> thought it was raising a related point.

Let's review, I stuck to the subject of airliners and token sock changed the
subject and told me I am wrong. In another branch of this thread, we were
discussing shooting an airliner with a 50 calibre rifle, shooting a specific
kind of exploding ammunition, to hit an engine and Weiss piped in about any
rifle hitting the airplane at all.

Ooops, you are projecting, token sock. Perhaps you would feel more at home
in a South Park episode.

> > > > Your earlier post "Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass
engines
> > > > very well." would seem to indicate you wished to depart from the
> > > > original thread by introducing the shooting of "heat seakers" at
HBPR
> > > > engines (thus broadening the field from Igla since Igla has never
> > > > fired on a commercial HBPR engine).
> >
> > On airliners, consistent with the title of the thread. Of course, token
> > sock, you could have added in your branch to the thread without
insisting I
> > am wrong, but you chose to be a flamer.

> Of course, you have conveniently neglected to mention the other part
> of the title of the thread, Igla. I still ask you to produce
> information that indicates that an Igla has ever been fired at an HBPR
> engined commercial aircraft.
>
> Also, in my original post, please quote what I said that was a flame.

No, token sock, you were rude and suggested a completely differen flight
profile as your proof that I am wrong. If you wanted to create a different
branch to the thread, all you had to do was avoud being an ass.

> I pointed out that you were wrong about HBPR engines and the Igla, and
> to prevent any misunderstanding of what I meant I clearly stated as it
> applies to the A-10. I never implied or said that I was trying to
> claim anything about airliners.

Do you really want me to repost your original post?

> If I am wrong, and you are correct, provide some information on when
> an Igla was fired at an HBPR equipped commercial airliner. If you can
> name one it will lend some credibility to what you say, if you can
> name two, you will have built a case.

Either way, right now the thread is speculation. The only airliners I know
of that were taken out by manpads were 727s.

> > > Possibly your only error here is inferring that Tarver wished to do
> > anything but
> > > confuse the issue in a discussion which has gone way over his head.
> >
> > No Weiss, it is a reading and comprehension problem you and the token
sock
> > share. As well as a penchant for changing the subject, so you can be
right,
> > in your own little fantasy world.
>
>
> "token sock"? That is twice you have directed derogatory comments at
> me, in response to nothing but information from me. If I am the sock,
> you are my puppet, and I am sure you find sock puppets very amusing.
> Even when you are only amusing yourself. Dance puppet, dance.

What else do you think using a character from South Park as a handle would
get you?

> I have seen you add MSEE/PE to your sig. I never questioned your
> right to add such. Now I wonder, how did you manage to defend a
> thesis on such incomplete blanket statements?

History. Plus it is a dumb idea to have commercial airliners spend
$billions on anti-missile defense. Doing so would make common carriers go
bankrupt.

[Token]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
>>>snip<<<
> Let's review, I stuck to the subject of airliners and token sock changed the
> subject and told me I am wrong. In another branch of this thread, we were
> discussing shooting an airliner with a 50 calibre rifle, shooting a specific
> kind of exploding ammunition, to hit an engine and Weiss piped in about any
> rifle hitting the airplane at all.
>


I do not see why Weiss should enter into this post. However, as you
said "in another branch of this thread". And yet in that branch the
subject line was not changed to include "bullets". So why would you
discuss them at all? Oh...I see...it is ok to branch out on the
subject, unless you are shown to be using data that can not be
supported. And then that branching becomes "changing the subject so
that you can be correct". And the poster is a "dumbass".


>>>snip<<<
> >
> > Also, in my original post, please quote what I said that was a flame.
>
> No, token sock, you were rude and suggested a completely differen flight
> profile as your proof that I am wrong. If you wanted to create a different
> branch to the thread, all you had to do was avoud being an ass.



No place in my original post did I talk about flight profiles at all.
I talked about a different target platform with the same type of
engines you described. I clearly identified it as a different
platform in the body of my text.

As far as being rude is concerned, you may indeed be able to correctly
identify when someone is being rude, as being rude, or at the very
least "abrupt", seems to be your default condition. However, no place
in my original post was I being intentionally rude.



>
> > I pointed out that you were wrong about HBPR engines and the Igla, and
> > to prevent any misunderstanding of what I meant I clearly stated as it
> > applies to the A-10. I never implied or said that I was trying to
> > claim anything about airliners.
>
> Do you really want me to repost your original post?


No need to repost my original post, just repost whatever part you feel
is about airliners with the complete sentence before and after that
part included.


>
> > If I am wrong, and you are correct, provide some information on when
> > an Igla was fired at an HBPR equipped commercial airliner. If you can
> > name one it will lend some credibility to what you say, if you can
> > name two, you will have built a case.
>
> Either way, right now the thread is speculation. The only airliners I know
> of that were taken out by manpads were 727s.
>



Yes, the thread is largly speculative. But only as applied to Igla.
Confirmable information that can be accessed in on-line sources
indicate that 727's have been shot down, 737's have been hit. Antonov
Il-76's and Fokker F-27's have also been brought down. Several other
large aircraft have been downed, but they were mostly turbo-prop, not
turbojet or fan. Several piston engined aircraft have been shot down
by MANPADs, including at least one DC-3. One source claims a DC-7 has
been taken down, but I have not been able to find supporting evidence.

I have not been able to find a source for the full FBI report that
documents 29 confirmed cases of airliners being shot down. I have
only gotten bits and pieces of that report, normally in the form of
quotes used by other sources.

Interesting thing about those piston engined aircraft being downed.
Have you ever looked at the thermal signature of a piston engined
aircraft versus any type of jet aircraft? I have viewed both types,
using a Merlin Mid camera in the 3-5 micrometer band, and a Pheonix in
the near, or 1-2.5 micrometer band. The piston engined aircraft all
had a significantly smaller signature than any high by-pass ratio fan
I have seen. As one would suspect, the piston aircraft had
essentially no plume, but only a hotspot on the exhaust. Naturally,
the plume of a jet shows best in the 3-5 band, with little in the
1-2.5 band, while the engine hard hotspots show in both the 1-2.5 and
the 3-5 band.

Remember that part of the problem with an aircraft's signature is not
just in temperature, but in total energy. In other words, if the
exhaust temp is 100 C cooler, but covers twice the area, and the total
of that area falls within the instantaneous field of view of the
seeker optics, then the seeker will still see the cooler temp as a
very seductive target. At least until you can cool the temp enough so
that there is little contrast between the exhaust temp and the
background. IR targeting is, after all, a world of contrast, rather
than absolutes.



>>>snip<<<
> >
> >
> > "token sock"? That is twice you have directed derogatory comments at
> > me, in response to nothing but information from me. If I am the sock,
> > you are my puppet, and I am sure you find sock puppets very amusing.
> > Even when you are only amusing yourself. Dance puppet, dance.
>
> What else do you think using a character from South Park as a handle would
> get you?

I have used the logon name of "Token" since 1972. I have used it in
Usenet since 1993 or 1994. A search on Google will show that this
name and this address have been used together since early 1999. Prior
to that it was used with another address. I first posted with this
name, to this newsgroup, but with a different email address in Oct
1996. I do not regularly watch South Park. I guess what it all comes
down to is I am not using a character from South Park, unless you
seriously believe I am capable of predicting the development of a
television show more than 25 years before it arrives.

T!

[Jack]

in article ,
at wrote on 2003/08/14 23:41:

> ...I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
> two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out.

PK might be near one, but not because of limited single engine capability
with modern airliners.

Rest easy.



Jack

[Michael Williamson]

wrote:

> FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere between
> 30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured. Therefore, I'd
> imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
> two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out. But today on
> CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like BS to me.

If you are expecting the airliner to crash simply because of the loss
of a single engine (out of two or more) after takeoff, then Pk would be
around zero. Airliners are required to safely continue the climbout
after the loss of an engine. Such performance is checked during
the planning/preflight stage, and if they don't have the performance,
then they have to offload fuel or cargo (including passengers) until
they are light enough to make the required performance.

Of more concern that engine performance is other damage to the
aircraft due to the missile strike, or even due to catastrophic
failure of the damaged engine. Fuel fire (the wings are typically
"wet"), damage to control surfaces or the hydraulic systems which
power them, etc., may well cause the aircraft to crash, but the
simple loss of thrust from the engine won't.

Mike

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> in article ,
> at wrote on 2003/08/14 23:41:
>
> > ...I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them
have
> > two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out.
>
> PK might be near one, but not because of limited single engine capability
> with modern airliners.
>

Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
for ETOPS

Keith

[Laurence Doering]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:11:48 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article ,
>> at wrote on 2003/08/14 23:41:
>>
>> > ...I'd imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them
> have
>> > two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out.
>>
>> PK might be near one, but not because of limited single engine capability
>> with modern airliners.
>
> Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
> capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
> for ETOPS

Airliners are also required to be able to climb after an engine failure
during takeoff at maximum takeoff weight. This means that modern twin
engined airliners have a substantially larger power reserve than older
multi-engine airliners (a 747 can meet the requirements with three out
of four engines operating, but a 767 has to meet them with only one
engine.)

A sudden engine failure during or shortly after takeoff would harder
to deal with than an engine failure during cruise, it's true. However,
airline pilots receive extensive training on how to handle various
emergencies, and engine failure during takeoff is one of the ones
they concentrate on.

With modern simulators, pilots today are probably better prepared to
handle an engine failure during takeoff or landing than they used to
be. When most training was conducted in actual aircraft instead of
simulators, simulating an engine failure during a critical phase of
flight was too dangerous to do routinely. In a simulator, it doesn't
matter if the trainee screws up several times before he learns how
to handle it.


ljd

[David Lesher]

Laurence Doering > writes:

>> Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
>> capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
>> for ETOPS

Or go to <http://www.chicago.com/airliners/gc.html>

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[John R Weiss]

Laurence Doering > writes:

> Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
> capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
> for ETOPS

Actually, they are required to have 'one-engine-out' performance. Three-engine
aircraft must do it on 2 good engines, and 4-engine aircraft must do it on 3
good engines. ETOPS is only applicable to 2-engine airplanes.

[Paul Austin]

"John R Weiss" wrote
> Laurence Doering writes:
>
> > Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
> > capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
> > for ETOPS
>
> Actually, they are required to have 'one-engine-out' performance.
Three-engine
> aircraft must do it on 2 good engines, and 4-engine aircraft must do
it on 3
> good engines. ETOPS is only applicable to 2-engine airplanes.
>

That's what the "T" stands for and while any twin engined transport
can cruise on only one engine, to qualify for ETOPS certification, the
engines and installation have to demonstrate very high reliability.
The operator has to demonstrate effective maintenance operations as
well.. ETOPS certification allows a twin engine transport to operate a
designated number of minutes of single-engine flight from a divert
airfield. ETOPS originally was for 90 minutes flight to a divert
field, later extended to 120 minutes and now to 180 minutes. Without
ETOPS certification, a transport can fly no further than 60 minutes
from a divert airstrip. All these times refer to revenue service and
don't apply to ferry flights.

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:17:24 -0400, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"John R Weiss" wrote
>> Laurence Doering writes:
>>
>> > Modern airliners are required to have very good single engine
>> > capability to operate on oceanic routes. Do a google search
>> > for ETOPS
>>
>> Actually, they are required to have 'one-engine-out' performance.
>Three-engine
>> aircraft must do it on 2 good engines, and 4-engine aircraft must do
>it on 3
>> good engines. ETOPS is only applicable to 2-engine airplanes.
>>
>
>That's what the "T" stands for and while any twin engined transport
>can cruise on only one engine, to qualify for ETOPS certification, the
>engines and installation have to demonstrate very high reliability.
>The operator has to demonstrate effective maintenance operations as
>well.. ETOPS certification allows a twin engine transport to operate a
>designated number of minutes of single-engine flight from a divert
>airfield. ETOPS originally was for 90 minutes flight to a divert
>field, later extended to 120 minutes and now to 180 minutes. Without
>ETOPS certification, a transport can fly no further than 60 minutes
>from a divert airstrip. All these times refer to revenue service and
>don't apply to ferry flights.
>

ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim :)

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)