Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Why You Should Never Believe A Passenger >

Why You Should Never Believe A Passenger

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Why You Should Never Believe A Passenger

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-30-2009, 04:30 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyDL's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Originally Posted by mmaviator
i suggest putting something comparable to a rotisserie skew in front of the engines. the bird woud get impaled and with the speed/airflow hopefully the feathers come off. after that, the skewer would slid into an opening by the burners for a nice 'grilling'. right before engine shut down, the FA opens the appropriate door to let the chosen sauce into the engine to flavor the bird. did i miss anything?
I can see Ron Popeil collaborating with Rolls Royce to make a "Set it & Forget It" Trent 1,000,000! It really cuts the fat.
FlyDL is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 04:34 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
Default

Originally Posted by FlyDL
On the outset that would appear to be an ideal solution, but the problem with that design would be to completely close off the inlet of a huge turbofan, rather than the small area of the turbojet inlet that the MiG-29 employs. Imagine implementing a system like that on a 777-200LR (77L), yikes
The MIG only uses the system for taxi on the ground at idle. When power is applied for takeoff the ramps open and air is drawn through the normal intakes. The point where a engine needs the best airflow is the highest power settings. This is why screens or other intake obstructions would never work. In addition a intake grate would have to be so strong to obsorb a impact from a 20lb goose at 300 knots it would be a huge weight increase. Even if it did keep the bird out of the engine the remains would disrupt airflow so much the engine would still more then likely have to be shutdown.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 04:47 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyDL's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
The MIG only uses the system for taxi on the ground at idle. When power is applied for takeoff the ramps open and air is drawn through the normal intakes. The point where a engine needs the best airflow is the highest power settings. This is why screens or other intake obstructions would never work. In addition a intake grate would have to be so strong to obsorb a impact from a 20lb goose at 300 knots it would be a huge weight increase. Even if it did keep the bird out of the engine the remains would disrupt airflow so much the engine would still more then likely have to be shutdown.
Great points. I had always wondered about that but figured that there was a damn good reason why they hadn't as of yet implemented any kind of bird screen. My idea for a simple (but probably ineffective) bird/FOD screen would have been something like this:

http://s2.largeimagehost.com/display...htU&skey=J7l30
Please excuse the lack of perspective and such, I made it in Paint in one minute. The black lines are guide wires that wouldn't obstruct airflow too much and wouldn't weigh too much. The problem with this design is that instead of deflecting FOD, it might instead just serve to chop it and allow the FOD to continue right on into the turbine. Still a good exercise in theory
FlyDL is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 05:00 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Default

Originally Posted by FlyDL
Great points. I had always wondered about that but figured that there was a damn good reason why they hadn't as of yet implemented any kind of bird screen. My idea for a simple (but probably ineffective) bird/FOD screen would have been something like this:

http://s2.largeimagehost.com/display...htU&skey=J7l30
Please excuse the lack of perspective and such, I made it in Paint in one minute. The black lines are guide wires that wouldn't obstruct airflow too much and wouldn't weigh too much. The problem with this design is that instead of deflecting FOD, it might instead just serve to chop it and allow the FOD to continue right on into the turbine. Still a good exercise in theory
And unless those guide wires were heated it looks like a pefect place for ice to form right before it falls off and is directed in the intake!

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 08:06 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
STILL GROUNDED's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 1,105
Default

Originally Posted by FlyDL
Maybe a retractable grate that opens up 100% at altitudes where FOD is not a concern?
Maybe we need all that power down low to get the damn thing up to altitude. Maybe we should let the really smart people that determine this thing will fly at all with a pencil and paper decide how to handle it. OR, maybe we don't do anything about it and wait for an unsuccessful outcome of an accident and let congress determine what is best. Who says everyone gets to live?
STILL GROUNDED is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 08:14 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Default

Originally Posted by STILL GROUNDED
Maybe we need all that power down low to get the damn thing up to altitude. Maybe we should let the really smart people that determine this thing will fly at all with a pencil and paper decide how to handle it. OR, maybe we don't do anything about it and wait for an unsuccessful outcome of an accident and let congress determine what is best. Who says everyone gets to live?
Some of the best ideas come from outside the establishment maybe? Man...that last sentence is kind of rough don't you think?

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 10:32 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default A grate idea

Originally Posted by FlyDL
Why don't they put a grate over the inlet to prevent the ingestion of birds and other FOD?
The A-37 had inlet screens to prevent ground FOD. They flipped back after takeoff, causing a noticeable increase in engine thrust.
tomgoodman is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 05:49 AM
  #28  
On Reserve
 
Buckethead's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
I don't have a good citation for this, but at JFK, the airport is located in a wildlife sanctuary of some kind and the (Port Authority I believe) has a full time ornithologist on staff to deal with the bird issue... I'll see if I can find out more about this and post later. At any rate, it is not an easy problem to deal with, thus the note you always get on the ATIS about "Birds in the vicinity"... well duuuh, but it does put the onus on the pilots.. yet again. What cracks me up about that is that you get the samo note at midnight, when most birds are sleeping.
Having lived until 16 years old not far from JFK, I know the area well.
Not only are there bird sanctuaries, as well as "protected" marsh areas, but JFK is also located near a rather large landfill. Additionally, it's right next to Jamaica Bay which hosts numerous, and rather large, Laughing Gulls. As well as Canada Geese. (Which, obviously, Sully learned about the hard way.) As well as literally thousand of other types of wildlife which take wing!
There was also an episode back in June of this year when 78 Diamondback Terrapin turtles invaded one of the runways. It caused delays of 90 minutes before the turtles were "coaxed" off the runways. (Coaxed? Or made into turtle soup?)

You may think it humorous that you receive memos such as you describe even at midnight but keep in mind that Canada Geese, although not necessarily nocturnal, will awaken and take flight at the slightest provocation.

I do find it, however, somewhat ludicrous that whomever it was who decided to build JFK (then Idlewild) at its location did not take any of this into consideration. I'm sure the surrounding population centers had something to do with this decision but to locate a major hub right next to known wetlands, marshes, sanctuaries, etc. seems a bit shortsided.
Buckethead is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 08:18 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
robthree's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777, sofa
Posts: 1,183
Default

Originally Posted by Buckethead
I do find it, however, somewhat ludicrous that whomever it was who decided to build JFK (then Idlewild) at its location did not take any of this into consideration. I'm sure the surrounding population centers had something to do with this decision but to locate a major hub right next to known wetlands, marshes, sanctuaries, etc. seems a bit shortsided.
I think it was Robert Moses, who essentially planned NYC from the '30s to the '60s. He refused to let the Dodgers build a new stadium in Brooklyn, wanted them to move to the site of Shay Stadium in Queens.

The most surprising thing about building JFK next to a marsh is that they didn't drain and pave the whole thing. Ecology wasn't exactly a well respected science in the '40s.
robthree is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 08:25 AM
  #30  
On Reserve
 
Buckethead's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Default

Originally Posted by robthree
I think it was Robert Moses, who essentially planned NYC from the '30s to the '60s. He refused to let the Dodgers build a new stadium in Brooklyn, wanted them to move to the site of Shay Stadium in Queens.

The most surprising thing about building JFK next to a marsh is that they didn't drain and pave the whole thing. Ecology wasn't exactly a well respected science in the '40s.
And it certainly isn't going to be drained and paved now. You can be sure the environmentalists will halt any such ideas.

And, yes, it was indeed Robert Moses who designed most of NYC. Unfortunately for him, when he told the Dodgers to go play at the current location of Shea Stadium (now CitiField) they buggered off to the West Coast instead!
Buckethead is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
2
07-07-2009 07:29 PM
vagabond
Major
3
06-01-2009 03:07 PM
ryan1234
Hangar Talk
24
04-21-2009 05:46 AM
ERJ135
Major
6
01-28-2009 08:50 AM
evh347
Hangar Talk
11
10-23-2008 08:54 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices