It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Birds and planes have been competing for air superiority for quite some time now.

What should be noted is that the landing/takeoff speeds of these planes far under that of birds flight altitudes is very low compared to their cruising speeds at 35,000 feet.

A planet hitting a bird on the nose like that at full speed would be quite the utter catastrophe, in either case the birds fate is pretty much sealed.

If you are wondering how much slower a low altitude, landing plane is than full speed, its in the order of 3 times slower - so a bird strike at the full speed would not just be causing 3 times the impact, the plane would have to suffer 3 times the air pressure coming at it - im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very healthy.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Funniest plane vs animal ever was an Alaska Airlines MD-80 that hit a salmon climbing after takeoff. There was an Eagle in the area that had caught it and the plane startled it and it dropped it, impacting the windscreen between the two pilots.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Funniest plane vs animal ever was an Alaska Airlines MD-80 that hit a salmon climbing after takeoff. There was an Eagle in the area that had caught it and the plane startled it and it dropped it, impacting the windscreen between the two pilots.


HAHAAAA!

Got a sudden flash of the whale falling to its doom after the use of the improbability drive in hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, good job it was only a salmon that time for the Alaska Airlines flight!



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Biigs

Aircraft designers created the "chicken gun" which used compressed air to fire chickens at aircraft to test resistance
to bird strikes

en.wikipedia.org...

Most vulnerable part of the aircraft to bird strikes are the cockpit windshields and the engines

The "MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON" = US Air Flight 1549 encountered a flock of Canada Geese on takeoff

Geese were sucked into the engines causing them to flame out

Pilots were able to do a dead stick ditching in the Hudson River without serious injuries

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Funniest plane vs animal ever was an Alaska Airlines MD-80 that hit a salmon climbing after takeoff. There was an Eagle in the area that had caught it and the plane startled it and it dropped it, impacting the windscreen between the two pilots.


In one case designers of high speed train used the "chicken gun" to test windshields

Results were catastrophic - chickens were smashing through the windshields like were butter and embedding in the seats

At a loss tried to figure out what was wrong - were told to use thawed chickens for the tests.......



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Funniest plane vs animal ever was an Alaska Airlines MD-80 that hit a salmon climbing after takeoff. There was an Eagle in the area that had caught it and the plane startled it and it dropped it, impacting the windscreen between the two pilots.


Still sounds rather fishy to me.........



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

"Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800"

Shouldn't that be "Boing 737-800 "destroys Bird"?

Or do you think the bird was OK and it's the plane that will never fly again?


status of the bird is unknown at this time


it collapsed into its own foot prints.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   


I only have this to add, as it is a boring day that is.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Deleted double post
edit on 12-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: dbl post



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: fireladdie

The only E-3 loss came when they flew into a flock of geese on takeoff and lost two engines on the same side.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Apples and Oranges again.......

Test described is where took old F 4 Phantom fuselage, strapped it to rocket sled and shot it at a concrete wall couple feet thick to see if aircraft impact could penetrate a nuclear reactor containment dome

Pentagon was not solid concrete despite what truthers like to believe

It was build mostly of common brick

Can see the construction in this shot of exit hole in C Ring wall

sites.google.com...

Notice brickwork ..........

Covered by layer of plaster or stucco and painted

The outer facade E Ring had a facade of cut limestone over the brick

Another thing is that on 2 lowest floors were no substantial internal wall (D Ring) to block the path of the aircraft

In interesting sidelight, during renovations found that in some cases was no mortar between courses (layers) of brickwork

Just bricks stacked on top of lower course

Which id why despite what plans say always have to confirm .......



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Santa strike ... No damage ... Either Santa is really soft or the plane was going very slow




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I agree completely. Apples and bananas even. That's why I believe that video made the exact opposite statement that the poster was trying to show. a reply to: fireladdie



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs

If you are wondering how much slower a low altitude, landing plane is than full speed, its in the order of 3 times slower - so a bird strike at the full speed would not just be causing 3 times the impact, the plane would have to suffer 3 times the air pressure coming at it - im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very healthy.


Worse, the impact energy increases as the square of the velocity - 1/2 m v^2.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

"Bird "destroys" Boing 737-800"

Shouldn't that be "Boing 737-800 "destroys Bird"?

Or do you think the bird was OK and it's the plane that will never fly again?


status of the bird is unknown at this time


it collapsed into its own foot prints.


major LOL on that one


I'm guessing free fall speed



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Of course, along the "this barrier is harder than the projectile, therefore it can't be penetrated" line of reasoning comes the sad sad truth of 1/2 mv^2.

Kinetic energy always wins.

So enjoy this youtube of a ping pong ball cutting a neat circular hole in a paddle, then breaking the paddle in two parts.

Plywood is way tougher than a ping pong ball. And ping pong balls are really structurally weak. So this can't really be a recording of one leaving a Looney Tunes neat hole in a piece of plywood and rubber.




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


really cool demonstration. What I noticed is...that the ball broke apart after impact. The question from the OP remains...how could debris that was mostly destroyed by the initial impact...punch through additional 2 walls and many concrete pillars in between. As shown in the video...the first impact destroyed the ball...if there were two additional paddles after the first one...would the ball punch through those as well. I think not. First hit absorbs most of the kinetic energy, what is left after that, does not have that initial velocity anymore and not nearly similar impact power, since it's been shredded to smaller pieces. I'm guessing the engines could have survived with still strong momentum...but than...how they circumvented the pillars to reach other section walls...is strange to me.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Bedlam
...is strange to me.


A plane would have less disparity in mass to the wall than a ping-pong ball to the paddle.

You wouldn't have believed the ping pong ball would do that at all, right? Intuition is often not well calibrated to unfamiliar situations. If you could depend on intuition and visualization, we'd never need to do experiments or calculations.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




You wouldn't have believed the ping pong ball would do that at all, right?


well...initially...I would ask...what are the properties of the paddle, before expressing my conclusions.

I'm well aware that object with high velocity and enough mass can make much damage.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The interior walls and pillars were weaker than the exterior. The external wall was kevlar reinforced, the interior walls were ordinary brick and mortar. Even though the aircraft broke apart, the landing gear and components were still very heavy and had a lot of momentum left.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join