Air liner (air freight) hit by MANPAD

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.

If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how
much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high
bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines
to me.

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

T!

It was reported to have hit the engine but pictures I saw showed the wing on
fire outboard of the engine.


"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

And if I understand the story correctly, the DHL crew had no idea what
happened, just that a portion of their wing had caught fire. It wasn't until
after they landed that reports of missiles trails were received by authorities.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.

If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine
how
much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

Horrifying for us all.


A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and
high
bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio
engines
to me.


I only saw a glimpse but it looked like an A310 with GE CF6 engines.

The RB211 engine might have a reasonable chance of obscuring the hot
exhaust nozzle as the shorter length of the Rolls Royce engines' 3
spool shaft allows the fan cowling to extend back beyond the exhaust
nozzle thus covering up hot metal completely. (RR use this technique
to reduce noise however)


Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a
MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor
statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got
wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

T!

If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?

Myc

"Mycroft" david wrote in message
...
If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?


It missed the engine, either way.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mycroft" david wrote in message
...
If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?


It missed the engine, either way.

Either way, it scrubbed the mission.

Pete

Token wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.

If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how
much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high
bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines
to me.

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

We can be thankful they do not seem to have ManPADS with a forward
aspect engagement capability. Those tend to be directed at the centre
of mass rather than heat sources. Something like Blowpipe, although
obsolete, has a 3.5 lb. warhead.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Pete" wrote:


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mycroft" david wrote in message
...
If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?


It missed the engine, either way.

Either way, it scrubbed the mission.

Pete

Probably not the only items that needed scrubbing I'll wager...
--

-Gord.

"Mycroft" david wrote in message
...
If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?

Myc

I would suspect that if the missile did indeed hit the engine at all that
fragments of either the weapon or the motor could have hit the wing. More
likely the weapon missed the engine proper and impacted someplace near on
the wing, or came in at an angle, clipped the engine, and impacted the wing.
I believe that this is quite common from the pictures of missile hits during
Desert Storm.

Example he
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/ab...181/181-11.jpg

The news reports on this incident I have seen so far all are saying it was
an SA-7. But if it was anything later than that (SA-14 or newer) it would
be a plume tracker anyway. A plume tracker must "push ahead" before impact
or it will pass harmlessly behind the engine and through the plume. I would
think the push ahead would result in many hits on parts of the aircraft
other than the engine itself.

As far as the possibility of proximity fuzing, according to most web sources
the SA-7 is contact fused only. Here is an example link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm

That site also claims that the Stinger, the SA-14 and the SA-16 have the
same type of contact fusing, it does not specify for the SA-18.

T!