Gyrene Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Incoming9000: The information I have about the picture is that it was taken from a 737 engine that sucked it a 3 Kg bird during takeoff. The Bird itself only made minor damage, but because of the full throttle needed for takeoff, making the engine work at maximum power, any damage, as slight it might be would cause slpinters from the blades, or anything else, to wreck havok inside the high pressure engine. It's the domino efect. The slightest damage can initiate a chain reacton that causes tremendous efects. True - but hte photo was of teh front blades - the 1st stage compressor, and GT engines that suffer catastrophic failures do not generlaly propogate damage forwards, so I'd expect all that damage to have come from eth impact. Clearly something caused it, but I'm sceptical about a single bird being the cause. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturner Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 All the treadheads I ever talked with about brew ups usually said they were really afraid of the cherry juice (the hydraulic fluid). While this was changed in the 60's -70's to a less flammable version, it still burns quite nicely. I always thought it was safer to be infantry. Originally posted by Jorm: I have the missfortune of being a fuels chemist who works for the dept of defence. just a few points and probably questions of those who use the stuff JP8 = Jet Propellant 8, it is EXACTLY the same crude oil distillation cut as jetfuel, and is in fact jet fuel with a few military additives ( lubricity improver, fuel system icing inhibitor, biocide, static disipator and a few other region specific ones) Most armies seem to be moving to a Single battlefield fuel concept, is the US army using JP8 in all its land vehicles ? Some poeple seem to have the missconception that gas turbines are powered by gas fuel, ie LPG etc. They *can* use gas but no current military land combat vehicle uses compressed gas fuel. anyways,i thought post combat analysis of wwii tank combat revealed that AFV vulnerability to fire was predominatly due to propellant fires and anot the vehicle fuel source. If fuel fires were the main cuase then the US military would probably sue the higher flash point JP5 fuel (US navy jet fuel, which has a flash point of 60C, rather than 38 C for Jp8). anyways, interesting thread and i alwasy love reading posts from those of you who were/are military people , espacially tankers be well Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by sturner: All the treadheads I ever talked with about brew ups usually said they were really afraid of the cherry juice (the hydraulic fluid). While this was changed in the 60's -70's to a less flammable version, it still burns quite nicely. I always thought it was safer to be infantry.The big problem is probably the pressure the lines are under. In the ag applications I am familiar with the hoses are under 2000 to 3000 psi pressure, so when something ruptures there is a lot of oil in the air. I imagine that mixed with sparks in an enclosed space like a tank interior would not be a good thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incoming9000 Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: Clearly something caused it, but I'm sceptical about a single bird being the cause. I found this on the net about bird strikes, that might give some light to this issue: "Birds' bones and the quills of their feathers are hollow. Some birds weigh mere ounces. So how can they pose a lethal threat to aviation? (...) Now recall your introductory physics course: Kinetic energy equals one-half times mass times velocity squared. In other words, kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass involved, and directly proportional to the square of the velocity. Double the mass of the object, you double the kinetic energy; double the velocity, you quadruple the kinetic energy. Colliding at 130 knots, a 4-pound bird (for example, an adult great black-backed gull) hits an aircraft with more than 2 tons of force, concentrated in a small area. At 260 knots, the same bird delivers a 9-ton punch." I don't know about you guys but a 9-ton punch sounds more than enought to make that kind of damage to me. The full article can be found here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by sGTGoody: Moving away from the technical, some other advantages of the M1's turbine is that it doesn't sound like a tank. Interestingly you can get a sound contact on an M1 when it is further away. Within a couple hundred meters all you hear is a whine and the track squeaking. interesting! i thought they were quieter, not just different. one eof the m1's nicknames was "whispering death" wasn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.