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.

 

"Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft"

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I found this to be an interesting read.



Since 1988, 219 people have died worldwide in air crashes caused by birds choking jet engines, according to the Bird Strike Committee, an advocacy group trying to alleviate the problem. In 2001, a UK study estimated that birds cost aviation $1.3 billion globally by damaging and delaying planes.

Article


 
Mod Note: Quote Reference-Please Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Jan 19 2009 by Jbird]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Yep, the article about sums it up. At least it's quick for the birds, I guess. I've heard people suggest a screen, but really, show me a screen that can take a 5-10 pound bird at 200-500 mph.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


lol. i can only imagine what would be similar to play-doh going through a cheese grater.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Screen wont work, It will get ripped by the incomming bird and then you got not just bird that can be chopped up by the turbine blades, but chunks of screen mesh sucked into the engine, getting jammed into the turbines and quite possibly causing far more damage, even an explosion.

Its best to just let the turbines cut up the bird.

Video


Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The only real way to avoid it would be to totally redesign the jet intake system itself, we have had this problem as long as jets have been flying.

The airport near me has one of the worse records, tropical region with surrounding mangroves and rainforrest, every thing from parrots to geese.

They have used a falconer to scare other birds away with only limited success, high frequency bird scarers which once again birds get used too as well as a rubber crocodile which just made me laugh when I saw birds sitting on it.

either that or completely remove all plants from trees to grass from the surrounding area for a few miles or move airports further inland to desert regions away from bird populations



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
The only real way to avoid it would be to totally redesign the jet intake system itself, we have had this problem as long as jets have been flying.


I remember during a session at EE class where this concept was brought up for jet engine intake designs. Using a cone that was made of re-enforced steel mesh, like a grate, in front of the engine intake. Computer simulations showed that this would in fact deflect the bird, but depending on the size/weight of the bird, it still presented a problem where bits of the grate mesh would break away and get sucked into the engine. There really isnt any viable solution. Not unless the completely enclose the engine intake and use air ducts, but that would add weight and would require a complete redesign of aircraft and the wing hardpoints.


Originally posted by munkey66
....as well as a rubber crocodile which just made me laugh when I saw birds sitting on it.


No kidding!! HAHAHA!!!




Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
What they need is a super quick butteryfly valve, or a type of shutter system on the front of each jet engine. Then they need to hook the valve or shutter to a sensor that can sense when objects pass a certain point, and that will instantly close the shutter before the object could reach the engine. Can't keep the shutter closed too long while the engine is running, so the shutter or valve would then clean itself uppon reopening. Like an active shield.

Or they could just design alternating bars that block a direct path of objects, but still allow air to find a path in.

Or they could use "microwave weapons" on the front of each jet engine, and it will heat up the birds and make them fly away before the jet reaches the birds.

Just some quick ideas, I could probably come up with 1000 more lol.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Just put some 1" spaced bars with knife edges infront the intakes, anything hitting them will be chopped into small chunks, hopefully passing through the jet engine without much damage.

Other than that, maybe use some intakes which face backwards on the jetplane? Use some sort of vacume effect (created with body panels etc) to draw the air passing over the intake into the engine. In this sort of case, a mesh would work fine, since the bird would be too heavy to draw into the intake, and if it was, it will impact the mesh at low speed.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The suggestion of a butterfly valve or shutter wont work. If you cap off a jet engine intake suddenly like that while its running, your cutting off the necessary airflow for proper combustion in the combustion chamber and probably will cause an explosion, or an unrecoverable stall of the engine. And with that idea, where is the captured bird on the shutter going next when its time to re-open that shutter? If its still stuck on the shutter, which it will be due to wind force in the forward motion of the aircraft, that bird will be sucked into the engine anyway...that is if the engine doesnt stall or explode due to lack of proper airflow when the shutter closed.


The re-directing of the intake with vents facing backwards idea. Wont work either.

What happens is that you will create a reverse vortex, the engine exaust being sucked right back into the intake, again causing a flamout or lack of oxygen in the airflow, leading to explosion. And it presents a major problem with reverse thrust which is used right after landing to slow down the aircraft. Retractable vanes move into position directly at the exaust nozzle of the engine to re-direct the exaust forward, thus "thrust airbrake". If you use duct work to move the intake away from the exaust, that will create alot of extra weight, which will cut down on efficiency and carrying capacity of the aircraft.


Some interesting ideas I must say...but not very practical.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I am an aeronautical engineer.

I love CAN'T DO attitude of this board. This is a problem that CAN be solved. Remember the cow-catcher that was invented for trains?? Just use your brains not your pessimism!!

Many of the ideas on this board have merit and are worthwhile with some simulation, tweaking, proper testing, etc. Right now the cost/exposure is not enough to cause industry to make these modifications but the latest crash into the Hudson may change all that. It is now a hot topic and will have high visibility....at least for a short while.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I am an aeronautical engineer.

I love CAN'T DO attitude of this board. This is a problem that CAN be solved. Remember the cow-catcher that was invented for trains?? Just use your brains not your pessimism!!

Many of the ideas on this board have merit and are worthwhile with some simulation, tweaking, proper testing, etc. Right now the cost/exposure is not enough to cause industry to make these modifications but the latest crash into the Hudson may change all that. It is now a hot topic and will have high visibility....at least for a short while.





Since you are an aeronautical engineer would you be so kind as to post some of the things that have been attempted and have subsequently been shot down therefore saving us the re-inventing the wheel scenario?

Much appreciated. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


People will forget it completely in a week, if they haven't by now, and it won't come up again until the next high-profile event. From a socioeconomic perspective, it would very likely be worse for society to implement most physical methods of keeping birds out of engines due to the decreased engine efficiency that would result than it would be to lose a hundred or so people every five or so years due to birds.

People are so myopic. The millions it would cost to implement such methods on every aircraft, and the subsequent millions more yearly it would cost in increased fuel consumption could easily save hundreds of thousands more lives if spent on something that was, you know, a REAL problem.

Think with numbers, not feelings, people. Millions starve, or die of preventable causes like malaria or waterborne illnesses every year. About 200 people have died worldwide from birds striking aircraft since 1988.

It's not a problem that can't be solved (It wouldn't be especially difficult to design a plane that's harder to bring down), it's a problem that doesn't have any reason to be solved. Solving the problem means spending money that could easily solve far more important problems.

That is, unless you weight the value the lives of a bunch of fairly well-to-do people who can afford to fly hundreds of times more than you value the lives of the world's poor.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
2 ways to stop birds getting sucked into jet engines.

!. Stop using jet engines

2. Kill all the birds

Neither is practicle... Although a new type of engine would be pretty cool.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Birds are generally only a problem when aircraft are on approach or departure, as the rest of the time they are too high to interact with them. Airports deal with this problem by chasing the birds away, and keeping people from sitting at the ends of the runways with food. A bird can pretty much go right through a piece of aircraft aluminum, so I cannot think of anything that would be tough yet light enough to block this from occurring. Birds are not the only FOD danger that aircraft encounter, either. A blown tire on take-off can FOD an engine just as effectively as any bird can.

Let me tell you, that cleaning up the mess from a bird strike is not much fun either.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
All the solutions mentioned in the previous posts, were, sorry to say, impracticle. Some jet engines consume 1,500 kilograms of air per second at climb thrust, and may be travelling at almost 500 kilometres per hour. Yes, this includes altitudes where birds are. I am assuming 250 knots under 10,000 feet, engine is GE90-115B.

Now, how do you block 1,500 kilograms of air from going into an engine, at over 500km/h? Two inlets? One will be sitting there 99.999% of the time, doing nothing, I presume? How much weight, would something be that is designed to stop an impact, and the air, at them speeds? A 12lb Candadian Goose at 500km/h? A shutter that somehow blocks 1500 kilograms of air at 500km/h? Impossible. Backward facing intlets is a bad idea. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. How would getting air, accelerating it to the speed of the plane, then pushing it out the back again, create thrust? Reverse thrust on the ground does something similar; and it ain't exactly efficient.

My solution? Require all new engine types from 2010 to be abled to ingest larger birds. And I'm not even sure if that's even nessesary, because it really isn't.

[edit on 19/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I don't see why a titanium screen wouldn't work.

I know it will hold up from a bird smashing into it. Small pieces of a bird can go through the engine better then a whole bird.

I don't believe it wouldn't work.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Birds are made of meat, which is about the density of water, but contains bones and such. Ever try slicing right through a whole chicken with a sharp knife? A dull mesh isn't going to have much more luck. Titanium is weaker per cross sectional area than steel. (but much lighter), so really ,unless weight is the most important issue at hand, steel is the superior material in this case. Birds will hit the mesh at, say, one to two hundred miles per hour in almost all cases, but at almost five hundred miles per hour in rarer cases. It would take an extremely tough grid to stop something like that; stronger than the aircraft's body, yet it still has to let an enormous quantity of air past. The only way I think would work is a lengthened cowling with very steeply forward raked parallel bars. If you were lucky, they'd deflect the bird.

Still don't think that it's fundamentally a problem that should be solved until more important problems are dealt with.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


That better be some strong mesh, and the supporting structure would probably have to be strengthened too. I don't like the idea of mesh as it's draggy.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Parallel very sharp blades. Two sets, one perpendicular to the other, and both fixed to the front of the intake with aerodynamic shape. They would let air into the engine in say 4 by 4 inches spaces, which would guarantee that the piece going through isn´t too big. The intake would have to be redesigned a little bigger I guess, to keep drawing the same amount of needed air. That wouldn´t be too heavy I think, and it could be made strong enough to stay with the engine but CHOP the bird into smaller parts that would produce less damage or no damage at all.

The question here is economic gain or loss for the manufacturers really. Are they willing to spend the money? If they are I´m sure they can come up with something safe and efficient. Maybe you have to take one less passenger per engine. I don´t think that´s TOO MUCH.




top topics



 
1

log in

join