Re: Just head on down the runway....

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:43:14 -0400, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"
<ei@xxxxx> wrote:

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

http://www.wbir.com/watercooler/article/163050/141/Coyote-delays-jets...

It'll get out of the way or not. I'm thinking a coyote won't hurt
an airliner if it doesn't get out of the way.

You're thinking wrong. Hey to the miracle on the Hudson. Or to the
Concorde.

I'm thinking a coyote isn't getting sucked into an engine unless it
jumps really high......

Doesn't have to get sucked into the engine to do significant damage.
How strong do you think the aluminum skins on airliners and their
flight control surfaces are, anyway? You ever look out your window in
an airliner and see all the NO STEP signs on the wings?

Coyote gets run over by landing gear, coyote debris gets kicked up
against the underside or other surface of the plane -- lots of
delicate (and important) components all over. Heck even without that
the steering mechanism on the nosewheel is vulnerable.

Don't forget the Concorde was brought down because it ran over a piece
of debris on the runway which blew out a tire, and pieces of the tire
got thrown up and damaged an engine.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Considering that airliners are so delicate I think it's really amazing that they regularly go 700
mph @ 39,000 feet for hours and don't get damaged.

I am unaware of any current "airliner" that exceeds 600 mph. Apparently
only the Gulfstream G650 (610 mph-not yet available for sale) and Cessna
Citation X (602 mph) exceed 600 mph amongst civilian jets.

As for the Concorde, it ran over a piece of metal. Somehow I don't
believe that running over a coyote would do the same kind of damage.
<
<The metal was the initial cause, but it's not what brought the
<Concorde down, it was the ensuing tire blowout.

The tire blowout was the middle cause, but what brought down the
Concorde down was the engine failure after pieces of the tire went
into it.

I don't think the engine would fare much better against pieces of
Coyote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/nyregion/16strike.html

"In the physical tests, the engines are revved to full power inside a
test facility and absorb various kinds of birds, from those the size of
sparrows to those the size of herons, one at a time. (The birds are
already dead.) The engines also ingest multiple birds meant to simulate
a collision with a flock, said Matthew Perra, a spokesman for the engine
manufacturer Pratt & Whitney.

To pass the test, engines must keep operating after the collision,
maintaining enough power to take off, fly around the airport and land
the plane safely, he said. That is because a jet with two engines has to
be able to take off on 50 percent power."

Bizarre, you use an article about a plane taken down by birds
to claim it shouldn't happen, when it obviously does. And they
took out an engine in 2003 in NYC as well.

Did you happen to notice that they went through a flock and had both
engines taken out?

Look, I don't know why you think it's good idea

Look, I don't know why you think I think it is a *good* idea to do this.

to send a plane
full of hundreds of HUMAN BEINGS hurtling down a runway at 180
mph with a coyote in the way, but it simply isn't worth the risk
if you ask me. Maybe if all the dumbnasses on board take a vote
and all agree that, "Gee, this sounds like a good idea!"...

I'm just pretty sure that a coyote made of flesh and bone and not all
that large is rather less of a hazard than injecting a very large,
steel-belted tire into an engine.

BTW, in researching bird strikes, I saw a picture of a deer stuck in the
landing gear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deer_bash.jpg
--
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
.

Quantcast