PK of Igla vs. airliner?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote...

ISTR that expert machine gunners in the USN had a hell of
a job shooting down small fragile Japanese aircraft flying
right over their heads after dropping torpedoes.

More over lots of highly motivated soldiers from WW1 onwards
have fire their rifles at aircraft attacking them without much
success for the most part

Forgive me if I'm a little sceptical about the idea of snipers shooting
down 747's


The discussion was regarding hitting the target, not shooting down the airplane.
However...

What is the purpose of terrorism? Maybe to instill widespread terror in the
public?

First, the 747 is significantly larger than a WWII torpedo bomber. Second,
immediately after takeoff or on the landing approach it is flying a predictable
path at a relatively slow speed. Third, the terrorists, who will likely be just
as expert and motivated as the WWII gunners, will not be under attack when they
try something like this. Finally, they will have the luxuries of a prolonged
planning period and of picking the time, place, and aspect angle for the attack.

The probability of hitting a 747 under those conditions is significantly higher
than that of hitting a torpedo bomber. Further, they need not "shoot down" the
airliner to accomplish their purpose, but "only" cause enough visible damage so
that their presence is made known.

In article 9Nz%a.131756$cF.34159@rwcrnsc53, John R Weiss jrweiss98155
@?.comNOSPAMcast.net writes
The probability of hitting a 747 under those conditions is significantly higher
than that of hitting a torpedo bomber. Further, they need not "shoot down" the
airliner to accomplish their purpose, but "only" cause enough visible damage so
that their presence is made known.

About a decade ago, the IRA managed to lob some home made mortars over
the fence at Heathrow, might even have hit a taxiway or runway. They
didn't hit an aircraft, not sure if they were aiming to (I don't
remember hearing much about any aircraft in the vicinity). Certainly
attracted attention though.

--
John

"Peter Glasø" pgglaso @ broadpark.no wrote in message
...

snip

You have never been around a 50, have you?

I was a 0.50 gunner in the army.Not the sniper versions though,the old M2
on
an anti-aircraft mount.And i meant shooting at taxiing aircraft,not while
they're doing 300 kmph, in the air.But if close enough,it shouldn't be
"impossible" to hit a 747 during take off,or landing either - it is a HUGE
aircraft.

This thread has progressed from taking out an engine to hittinbg the broad
side of a barn, with a 50 cal. Even then, at one shot per pull, your
chances of hitting that barn at 3 miles a minute are poor.

"Peter Glasø" pgglaso @ broadpark.no wrote in
:


"Tarver Engineering" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Glasø" pgglaso @ broadpark.no wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" skrev i melding
...

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

snip
Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people
shy
away
at
the thought of being a gator's dinner.

I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I
found
fried
gator tail to be delicious.

But the chance of hitting something critical still is very
small,and
the
frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving
target.
Still not an easy task.

Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure
luck.

Snipers have ignited the fuel tanks of APCs at ranges over a mile
with
0.50
cal. sniper rifles.Hitting a 747 at a range of a few hundred yards
should
be
no problem -

Although a 50 cal is an acceptable 1000 yard shooter for stationary
targets,
what you posted seems to be a fantasy, Peter. The 747 will be
traveling over 2 miles a minute at approach.

especially with a semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine.

OK.

You have never been around a 50, have you?

I was a 0.50 gunner in the army.Not the sniper versions though,the old
M2 on an anti-aircraft mount.And i meant shooting at taxiing
aircraft,not while they're doing 300 kmph, in the air.But if close
enough,it shouldn't be "impossible" to hit a 747 during take off,or
landing either - it is a HUGE aircraft.




Well,so what.Even Raufoss ammo is not 'super ammo' that destroys everything
in its path. And the frontal area of an aircraft is much smaller than it's
side profile,and the chances of hitting a VITAL item is much smaller,too.
TO is around or over 150 MPH,I believe.150-180 at least.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

You absolutely do not need .50 to penetrate an aircraft skin. A
regular 7.62 NATO, not even AP, should do nicely. And there is a whole
lot more MG's in that and similar Warpac calibers that are out there,
than 50's. And there are AA MG's too. That to me would pose a greater
risk of actually bringing a liner down. Though you have to be a lot
closer than a click. But in most cases you can be directly under the
flightpath of very low flying jets. Shooting a 767 with a .50 to get a
hit in the midsection somewhere, seems like a waste of time.

Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by small
arms. Should we tell him?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
small
arms. Should we tell him?

Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by small
arms fire.

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
"Leadfoot" wrote:

It's not just the loss of the engine, it's the shredding of vital
componenets all along the rear of the wing that takes the plane down.

If you'd ever had a CLOSE look at all the crap that runs all along the
rear
of a wing of a commercial airliner you'd lnow what I'd mean. The aileron
and flaps don't work so good with hydraulic lines shredded.

Indeed, if we're talking about SE climb, we're wincing and
looking at the best possible case. A fuel and hydraulic fire seems a
lot more likely, plus the control failure you note.

Q : are the hydraulic systems isolated left and right ? So
that a hit on one side doesn't cause immediate failure of the other
side ? I'm wondering if still having one working aileron might leave
enough control authority so that another Al Haynes might yet get it
down somewhat intact.

I've been out of the industry for over 5 years so I'm really on aincient
(64KB ;-) memor\y

There is really good isolation in the fuselage, however as space gets more
confined as in the trailing edge of a wing everything gets closer and closer
together. Most of my experience is with 747 and L-1011's which have more
than 2 separate system which means you have more redundancy ro play with

As for whether you can effectively fly with one aileron out you'd need to
ask a pilot. As I recall most have inboard and outboard ailerons which are
always on different hydraulic sytems



Q : Do any large airliners run these essential systems near
mid wing or toward the front by the spar ?

Not much choice you run the lines where they need to go. Mid-wing generally
is part of the gas tank. If you are sitting over the center wing box in the
fuselage of a 747 you are generally sitting over 50,000 pounds of fuel. I do
recall the AC generator lines do not get run in the trailing edge but in the
leading edge





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Leadfoot" wrote...

As for whether you can effectively fly with one aileron out you'd need to
ask a pilot. As I recall most have inboard and outboard ailerons which are
always on different hydraulic sytems

All modern airliners are designed such that they can be safely controlled with
one hydraulic system totally inoperative.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
small
arms. Should we tell him?

Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by small
arms fire.

Did I say "airliner?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired