Laser beams being aimed at airliners?

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:9gREd.1988$bX4.999@fed1read03...
I have heard the "Myth" as the jet engine not a windscreen. That test may
have been cost prohibitive.
--SNIP--
Uh, yeah, considering that pretty much anything bigger than a cockroach
inhaled into a turbine _will_ destroy it catastrophically. Obviously even
a thawed chicken will too, so no point.

Hmmm, I thought they could take a hit from a bird.

As for acuracy, they never did test actual bird-rated "military"
canopies, but they ain't cheap. But in their defense, for my money the
final test with multiple sheets of glass pretty much proves that frozen
birds have more penetrating power.

It was interesting tho, that where a thawed bird went thru, there was more
physical damage. Largely due to the flattening of mass prior to penetration.
The frozen bird went farther into the fuse'. Standard ballistics really.
Solid vs semi solid, blah, blah.

I still find them entertaining and thats probably their main goal.

Well yeah. They're a real example of "infotainment" or "edutainment".
I'm considering getting their DVD's for my grandkids.

Mark L. Fergerson

You and I have heard a great many of these myths. The Chevy with a JATO is a
good one. They could easily have disproved that one with basic physics but
it wasn't entertaining that way. It was, IMHO, entertaining to see it
attempted. I mainly watched it to see how they mounted it so that it would
drive the car rather than "gut" it on it's way thru. ;-)
If I had kids (or grandkids) I'd probably ruin the entertainment for them.
My anal, nit-pick narrative would most likely **** 'em off.
Hee Hee

Marty

Marty wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:9gREd.1988$bX4.999@fed1read03...

I have heard the "Myth" as the jet engine not a windscreen. That test may
have been cost prohibitive.

--SNIP--

Uh, yeah, considering that pretty much anything bigger than a cockroach
inhaled into a turbine _will_ destroy it catastrophically. Obviously even
a thawed chicken will too, so no point.

Hmmm, I thought they could take a hit from a bird.

Apparently my info is a tad out of date, frinst:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/fi...t_strikes.html

Note that "uncontained failure" means bits of the engine
departing the nacelle at right angles to the engine axis
(usually at high velocities). But few complete destruction
events are seen; apparently repaired turbines are now
considered trustworthy. Back in my military days, the whole
thing would be replaced if even a single blade showed a nick
or crack, just in case something could cause later failure
at a "Murphy moment", per:

http://www.testdevices.com/lcf_page.htm

If you're not on dial-up, watch the next one. In the
"make it fail" spirit of Mythbusters, Rolls-Royce uses a
"small explosive charge" to blow a blade loose from one of
their engines in a static test and it _doesn't_ blow itself
all over the place:

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/1510.mpg

Some other fun stuff:

http://www.elchineroconcepts.com/el_...aft_action.htm

As for acuracy, they never did test actual bird-rated "military"
canopies, but they ain't cheap. But in their defense, for my money the
final test with multiple sheets of glass pretty much proves that frozen
birds have more penetrating power.

It was interesting tho, that where a thawed bird went thru, there was more
physical damage. Largely due to the flattening of mass prior to penetration.

Also the test fixture couldn't have been what I'd
consider solid enough; I mean, the first and _fourth_ (IIRC)
plates broke, but not the second etc? WTF?

The frozen bird went farther into the fuse'. Standard ballistics really.
Solid vs semi solid, blah, blah.

Yep, but not obvious in the earlier tests where
frozen/thawed birds did much the same damage.

I still find them entertaining and thats probably their main goal.

Well yeah. They're a real example of "infotainment" or "edutainment".
I'm considering getting their DVD's for my grandkids.

You and I have heard a great many of these myths. The Chevy with a JATO is a
good one. They could easily have disproved that one with basic physics but
it wasn't entertaining that way. It was, IMHO, entertaining to see it
attempted. I mainly watched it to see how they mounted it so that it would
drive the car rather than "gut" it on it's way thru. ;-)

Also, in the version I most often hear the rocket from a
Sidewinder is bolted _under_ the car, making it go airborne
at the first bump in the pavement. But where's the fun in
that? ;)

If I had kids (or grandkids) I'd probably ruin the entertainment for them.
My anal, nit-pick narrative would most likely **** 'em off.

I plan on trying to keep my commentary to asking them if
what they see is "reasonable". ;)

Mark L. Fergerson