PK of Igla vs. airliner?

"Tarver Engineering" in message
...
Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
understand.

OK ... I have been more or less in lurk mode in this NG for a few
years, think I have posted 5 times in 7 years. But I gotta stick my
foot in this one.

"but have missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles."

I believe the A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the TF34 high-bypass-ratio
turbo fan? How many A-10's got hit during Desert Storm 1 by shoulder
launchhed or IR guided weapons? A hint, far more than one.

Check here for some numbers:
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html

So, I would have to say that the statement that a shoulder launched
missile has never hit a high bypass engined vehicle would be patently
incorrect.

I have not the information on the types of airliners hit by shoulder
launched weapons, but are you saying that of the 29 (since 1973) that
the FBI list as being shot down (not just damaged) not one has used a
high-bypass engine?

T!

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
they
still do that.

Actually, they _thaw_ the chickens first. The story you heard is a
joke, not an accurate description.

It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.

Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?



Here's what unthawed birds do to the fuselage.
It was a 4 day field trip Paris, did'nt see much of Paris except the ramp.
Patched it up, flew it unpressurized and stiff legged all the way back to AFW.

http://www.geocities.com/afwjr/767.html

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.

Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.

Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.

"Token" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" in message
...
Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective
agiainst
turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high
bypass
engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
understand.

OK ... I have been more or less in lurk mode in this NG for a few
years, think I have posted 5 times in 7 years. But I gotta stick my
foot in this one.

"but have missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles."

I believe the A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the TF34 high-bypass-ratio
turbo fan? How many A-10's got hit during Desert Storm 1 by shoulder
launchhed or IR guided weapons? A hint, far more than one.

Check here for some numbers:
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html


You must remember to factor in Tarvers Constant

Anytime JT makes a categorical statement of fact regarding
aeronautics he is wrong, it helps resolve many arguments
we just watch way he votes and we know we can discard that option.

Keith

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.

Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.

Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.



I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.

Your exact complete quote from the messaqe I replied to:

Here on Earth, sholder fired missiles are proven to be effective agiainst
turbo jets such as older 727s use, but have missed every shot on high bypass
engine vehicles. Think for a moment at the difference in discharge
temperatures for the two different types of engines and I think you will
understand.


And naturally, in the message just before that one you said (again,
the complete quote here):

Those heat seakers don't chase high bypass engines very well.

At no place in either of these messages do I see that you said
"high-bypass-ratio engines on airliners only". I see blanket
statements about high-bypass engines. I see the statement "but have
missed every shot on high bypass engine vehicles." I was unaware that
the term "vehicles" was another name specificly and only for
airliners.

Now, a simple statement such as "I meant only as applied to airliners"
would have been a civil and socially acceptable manor of correcting
what you perceived to be an error in my statement. This statement
would have made me respond with something like "OK, I can understand
that, do you have a source that I can check that list all the
airliners shot down by manpads? I mean since you know that no
high-bypass engines have ever been hit, I would like to broaden my
knowledge base and see what have been the most susceptible platforms."

Since you instead chose to jump right in and call me (someone you have
never corresponded with before as far as I know) a "dumbass" I am less
than obliged to believe a word you have typed. So prove it to me you
inconsiderate, uneducated, opinionated piece of trash. Show me a
source that indicates no high-bypass engined vehicle has ever been hit
by a shoulder launched missile.

T!

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...

Flying 30 feet off the ground along a track is not something airliners do.

Are you saying that an A-10 at 30, or even a more realistic 300 feet,
is an easier target for a manpad than an airliner climbing out on
take-off or coming in on final?

T!

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:48:01 -0400, Peter Kemp
peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:58:33 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.

Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?

There was a crew change already scheduled (PanAm from Somewhere to
Heathrow, on which they hit the goose, then PanAm from Heathrow to
LAX, which was delayed eight hours). We were on the London to Los
Angeles flight.

From some of the stories I've heard about PanAm 747 captains, a mere
bird strike wouldn't cause such a reaction. We were on the
next-to-last US flight out of Tehran, the one with people sitting in
the aisles and galleys, so I'm inclined to believe the stories.
Speaking of FAA and the FARs, it was completely legal, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Token" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

Flying 30 feet off the ground along a track is not something airliners
do.

Are you saying that an A-10 at 30, or even a more realistic 300 feet,
is an easier target for a manpad than an airliner climbing out on
take-off or coming in on final?

You could trow a rock at an A-10 and hit it.

"Token" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.

Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.

Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.



I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.

Read the header again and get back with us.

"Token" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Token" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
Ya gotta remember that you're dealing with -Tarver- here.

Yep, changing the subject just makes you look like a dumbass, token.

Yanik, of course, tabbed right on to your supid.



I was unaware that I had changed the basic subject of your comment. I
also never called you a derogatory name, such as dumbass.

Read the header again and get back with us.


I read the header,

Good..

Thanks for playing.