Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[MastanKhan]

Momentum will be directly proportional to speed. Plus this is not a normal physics collision since the boar is not a rigid body. It would have probably been thrown away by the impact. So, the reverse impact on the plane's body should actually be quite lesser as compared to what it would have been had the plane hit a really rigid object.

Anyways I read you link and found only one line on the incident.

Sir,

For many a years I lived close to Hill AFB---once awhile an F16 would crash into the lake---the reporters would be asking----why can't you find the plane----it just went into water---the answer would be---at speeds of 200---300 +++ knots---hitting water is like hitting a brick wall----the plane would be shattered into small pieces.

The aircraft weighing at 40000 lbs travelling at 140 knots / hr would generate a force ---if it hits a dead object head on would generate a force of 5.6 million ft/lbs ( am I right )----the dead weight of the object is around 200 lbs---the results are catastrophic.

But the question is---what do you want to prove---.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Sir,

For many a years I lived close to Hill AFB---once awhile an F16 would crash into the lake---the reporters would be asking----why can't you find the plane----it just went into water---the answer would be---at speeds of 200---300 +++ knots---hitting water is like hitting a brick wall----the plane would be shattered into small pieces.

The aircraft weighing at 40000 lbs travelling at 140 knots / hr would generate a force ---if it hits a dead object head on would generate a force of 5.6 million ft/lbs ( am I right )----the dead weight of the object is around 200 lbs---the results are catastrophic.

But the question is---what do you want to prove---.

The problem is everywhere here is busy assuming that I am out to prove something.

 

[MastanKhan]

The problem is everywhere here is busy assuming that I am out to prove something.

so, then what is at issue.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

so, then what is at issue.

I asked a simple question. Anyways I have already closed this conversation from my side. I expect no more replies from u

 

[Donatello]

I asked a simple question. Anyways I have already closed this conversation from my side. I expect no more replies from u

You asked a question and when presented with factual answers, you went on a completely different tangent. Either don't ask or engage in proper logical discussion.

Just from my side, Combat aircraft are extremely fragile machines, infact most airplanes are. They are not 50 tons of moving metal like Tanks. An animal the size of a wild boar can cause a lot of damage at high speed, 140knots is a good 250kmph.

Have a look here at how much damage a wild boar can cause a car travelling at just 100kmph....

Photo Gallery: Crash Tests on Wild Boars - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International

So a wild boar will pretty much smash the nose gear and cause underside damage to a F-16.

 

[gambit]

Sir,

For many a years I lived close to Hill AFB---once awhile an F16 would crash into the lake---the reporters would be asking----why can't you find the plane----it just went into water---the answer would be---at speeds of 200---300 +++ knots---hitting water is like hitting a brick wall----the plane would be shattered into small pieces.

The aircraft weighing at 40000 lbs travelling at 140 knots / hr would generate a force ---if it hits a dead object head on would generate a force of 5.6 million ft/lbs ( am I right )----the dead weight of the object is around 200 lbs---the results are catastrophic.

But the question is---what do you want to prove---.

You asked a question and when presented with factual answers, you went on a completely different tangent. Either don't ask or engage in proper logical discussion.

Just from my side, Combat aircraft are extremely fragile machines, infact most airplanes are. They are not 50 tons of moving metal like Tanks. An animal the size of a wild boar can cause a lot of damage at high speed, 140knots is a good 250kmph.

Have a look here at how much damage a wild boar can cause a car travelling at just 100kmph....

Photo Gallery: Crash Tests on Wild Boars - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International

So a wild boar will pretty much smash the nose gear and cause underside damage to a F-16.

Very good, gents.

I always use this example whenever I had to explain the differences between aerodynamic forces versus physical forces: Which is more damaging, standing against a 20 km/h wind, or being hit by a car moving at 20 km/h ? I stumped every trainee.

It is not that they do not know the answer, it is that the question made them to rethink about the forces that acts upon a body, whether it is the human body or an aircraft body. An aircraft IS a very physically fragile body in terms of forces that it is designed to encounter and manage. A brick do not flow around an obstacle the way a gust of wind will and precisely because a gust of wind will deflect, conform to the obstacle, and create differential pressures that we designed a body to exploit this behavior and eventually flying machines.

 

[MilSpec]

The F-104. Really bad experience by the Luftwaffe. Still, its off topic. As a general rule, American equipment has been really safe, with safety systems for safety systems.

So was B26 Marauder, B24 Liberator, BA349 Natter,

 

[shaheenmissile]

Bird strikes damage planes in two ways. The most obvious is hamage to plane's body. Depending on where the bird hits the plane,the plane may survive the strike or may fall out of the sky due to death of piliot as there has been incidents where piliots have been decapitated.The other form of damage is when then engine sucks up the bird and gets damaged.

No wonder Pakistan's latest second hand F-16 from Jordan have bird cutters fitted in front of canopy

 

[fatman17]

PAF has another anti-bird strike weapon which is activated during take-off and landings. a man with a shotgun drives around the landing strip shooing off the birds with his shotgun. cheap, innovative.

 

[syedali73]

Bird strikes damage planes in two ways. The most obvious is hamage to plane's body. Depending on where the bird hits the plane,the plane may survive the strike or may fall out of the sky due to death of piliot as there has been incidents where piliots have been decapitated.The other form of damage is when then engine sucks up the bird and gets damaged.

No wonder Pakistan's latest second hand F-16 from Jordan have bird cutters fitted in front of canopy

What? Those IFF antennas are for preventing the pilot form the bird strike?

 

[SQ8]

What? Those IFF antennas are for preventing the pilot form the bird strike?

NO, they are called bird slicers due to their "looks". Other than that they have NOTHING to do with preventing bird strikes.

 

[Windjammer]

What? Those IFF antennas are for preventing the pilot form the bird strike?

A bird strike shattering the canopy is not as fatal as one getting sucked into the engine.
As for an aircraft hitting an object on runway, remember, how a strip of metal lying on the runway brought down the Concorde.

 

[SQ8]

A bird strike shattering the canopy is not as fatal as one getting sucked into the engine.
As for an aircraft hitting an object on runway, remember, how a strip of metal lying on the runway brought down the Concorde.

That depends on the type of Canopy. Generally, the one piece canopies of the F-16 and F-22 have been More resistant to Bird strikes due to them being thicker polycarbonate which is needed to maintain the one piece shape.

 

[syedali73]

@Oscar @Windjammer Thanks for the clarification. Actually I was addressing @shaheenmissile for he somehow got confused about the function of the IFF antenna, which as you have mentioned correctly, has nothing to do with 'slicing off the birds'.

 

[shaheenmissile]

NO, they are called bird slicers due to their "looks". Other than that they have NOTHING to do with preventing bird strikes.

But this type of IFF first appeared only on ADF version which was meant to fly very low and highly likely to get struck by the birds.