PK of Igla vs. airliner?

"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.

"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.

"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

"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!

"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.

"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!

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

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

"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

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