Survivability in Combat

On 08 Dec 2003 15:45:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

ED,

That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
engines? That was the question.

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

I thought the question was to generate discussion.

Well, if the question is "do radials have a higher survivability rate
once hit than jet engines" then I've still got to have more
information. Are you asking if the engine is hit or the airframe that
the engine propels? I'll assume you just mean engine.

What is it hit by? Small arms, large bore AAA, SAMs (large or MANPAD),
A/A cannon fire (what caliber)? It makes a difference.

Radials are known for taking a lot of punishment, with entire jugs
being blown and still pushing. Similarly large turbojets aren't so
very FOD sensitive. The turbine blades of J-75s used to be polished by
running the engine and shoveling pecan shells into the intake. The
front stage compressor blades had considerable play so that they
rattle like tin cans falling when the engine spools down. Current
hi-bypass turbofans have even more room for stuff to pass through.

Take a hit in the compressor and maybe you loss it or maybe you don't.
Take a hit in the turbine and maybe it comes apart or maybe it
doesn't. Take a hit in the burner can and you may not even notice,
unless it takes out fuel lines or hydraulics. It depends.

The simple question without any further information is relatively
meaningless. The choice of answers I can give to the unembelished
basic question a "yes", "no", and "maybe". Pick the one that gives
you the most mileage, but don't take it to the bank. If you don't
define the assumptions, you've got no answer.

Remember GIGO? "Garbage in, garbage out."