Timeline for How do engine manufacturers minimize damage from bird strikes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2015 at 5:53 | comment | added | mins | @reirab: I agree. The article tackles the limited coverage of current certification vs actual threats. | |
| Jul 8, 2015 at 5:13 | vote | accept | Victor Juliet | ||
| Jul 7, 2015 at 20:01 | comment | added | reirab | @mins That's not really very surprising. At 250-300 mph, a 10 lb. bird is a pretty good approximation of a cannon round. Small birds usually get chopped up easily enough by the intake fan, but a large, dense one is a (literally) much bigger problem. | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 18:31 | comment | added | Quora Feans | The vulnerable moments are take-offs and landings. The question is how airports, and not engine designers, minimize birds being sucked into jet engines. There is a handful of means here to keep birds far from the runway. | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 18:21 | comment | added | mins | Some pilots were not too happy with certification standards in 2000: "The ability of modern jet engines to ingest birds and continue to operate is largely misunderstood or not contemplated at all in the aviation industry. Currently there is not one jet engine operating in the world that is certified to ingest one large bird (goose, swan, stork, pelican, vulture, etc) and continue to operate". US Air Line Pilots Association. I hope that changed... | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 17:58 | comment | added | mins | See: Aircraft Certification for Bird Strike Risk. Also on Wikipedia: Bird strike | 3.1 Vehicle design | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 17:44 | answer | added | KeithS | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jul 6, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | DSarkar | It has been discussed here aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3450/… | |
| Jul 6, 2015 at 14:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAviation/status/618062425217179648 | ||
| Jul 6, 2015 at 7:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 6, 2015 at 8:15 | |||||
| Jul 6, 2015 at 7:09 | history | edited | cpast | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 53 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jul 6, 2015 at 7:08 | comment | added | cpast | @Simon Agreed with OP: this is not a duplicate of that question, because this is about the current state of the art. | |
| Jul 6, 2015 at 7:06 | comment | added | Victor Juliet | That is one idea proposed by someone and more importantly Not in Use, and the answers to that question too try to find the feasibility of the suggested idea. My question pertains to measures already in use. Please consider. Thanx | |
| Jul 6, 2015 at 7:05 | history | edited | Victor Juliet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| Jul 6, 2015 at 6:48 | history | asked | Victor Juliet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |