Air liner (air freight) hit by MANPAD

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.

If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how
much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high
bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines
to me.

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

T!

It was reported to have hit the engine but pictures I saw showed the wing on
fire outboard of the engine.


"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

And if I understand the story correctly, the DHL crew had no idea what
happened, just that a portion of their wing had caught fire. It wasn't until
after they landed that reports of missiles trails were received by authorities.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

And if I understand the story correctly, the DHL crew had no idea what
happened, just that a portion of their wing had caught fire. It wasn't until
after they landed that reports of missiles trails were received by authorities.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

Al Minyard

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

It could have missed. That happens, even with guided missiles.

A change in aspect might have fooled the missile into "thinking" that
the plane was moving away, so it would have gone off early.

The flight path of the missile might have been from the left and above
(plane in a slight bank, missile coming in fairly horizontal). I'm not
too sure about this one, since I haven't seen any photos of the wing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard wrote in
:



I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the
impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

Al Minyard

IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head
slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
Alan Minyard wrote in
:



I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the
impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

High bypass engines.

IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head
slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit.

Luck.

"Alan Minyard" wrote...
On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on
the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts
elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual
fires.

The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the
airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at
detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the
combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the
outboard wing.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message ...
"Alan Minyard" wrote...
On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on
the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts
elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual
fires.

The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the
airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at
detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the
combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the
outboard wing.

Check these out...

http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS

"s.p.i." wrote...

Check these out...

http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS

VERY interesting! A lot more damage than was apparent in the long-distance
photo, but all concentrated on the outboard wing. However, there were no good
shots of the rest of the underside of the airplane.