Bird Stike on Take-Off

[Garbage1]

Looks like FAA/ATC were not effectively identifying, tracking and eliminating birds at airport. I wonder how little is done now days to remove birds around airports and how far from airport they can mitigate? Seems like if X-Band phased array radars were deployed, they could not only detect but could make it uncomfortable for birds near airports.


Quote. "FedEx Flight 3609 from Newark to Indianapolis experienced a bird strike during takeoff," the statement reads. "Our crew declared an emergency and returned safely to Newark. We are thankful for the quick actions of our crew and first responders."

Quotes:

"In 2023, 19,603 strikes were reported in the U.S., an increase of 14 percent compared to the 17,205 strikes reported in 2022, according to an FAA report. "

"Bird strike-related aircraft incidents have killed 76 people and destroyed 126 aircraft from 1988 through 2023, per the report."

 

[Mark_B]

If we count other nations - there was recently a disaster in South Korea which was reportedly the result of a double-engine bird strike. Sadly 179 people killed in one event.

 

[TugboatEng]

One would think that with all of the bird flu going around that there would be fewer birds.

I do have a question, are propeller driven planes more or less vulnerable to bird strikes than jets? The propeller has a larger cross section area that it operates in but also operates at a lower speed and maybe has less of a suction effect.

 

[waross]

I understand that turbo-props may suffer bird ingestion, as well as prop strikes.
I remember a twin turbo going down after a bird strike when I was in Central America.
No serious injuries.
As I recall, it was ingestion.

 

[IRstuff]

One would think that with all of the bird flu going around that there would be fewer birds.

Wilds birds are mostly carriers of bird flu, but it kills chickens PDQ

I do have a question, are propeller driven planes more or less vulnerable to bird strikes than jets? The propeller has a larger cross section area that it operates in but also operates at a lower speed and maybe has less of a suction effect.

There is no suction involved. Lower speeds result in lower collision velocities against sturdier propellers vs. fan blades, but turbofans have a much larger vulnerable cross-section compared to propeller planes

 

[Brian Malone]

Isn't the mechanism of damage different for the turbo fan engine compared to a straight propeller because the basic difference of the engines? The turbo jet section has internal clearances appropriate only for compressible fluid (air); ingestion of solid material will destroy the blades and stators, clog the combusion tubes. A prop engine just expels morcilated material to free space.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I have murdered hundreds of birds with aircraft. Mostly small species' in turboprops.

It's very geographic where.

Most hit away from the engines during approach with low power settings.

Jets climb quicker out of the bird risk alt zone.

Only had 3 in 2000 hours flying the A220.

But then again had similar in the same hours on the Q400. So it could be the company paint scheme.

Black painted aircraft which is stupid for numerous other reasons seem to attract them.

 

[IRstuff]

A prop engine just expels morcilated material to free space.

Prop engines are more susceptible to air intake clogging, I think; they get their air for combustion from a manifold that's in the air stream and distributes to the cylinders. The propellers have less damage potential since they're typically sturdier than the turbofan blades, which don't provide the actual thrust for forward motion, unlike propellers.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Turboprops which are used for almost all propeller commercial aircraft more than a couple of tons.

The propeller is driven by a jet engine via a gear box.

It's usually a centrifugal compressor.

 

[tdmidget]

Turboprops which are used for almost all propeller commercial aircraft more than a couple of tons.

The propeller is driven by a jet engine via a gear box.

It's usually a centrifugal compressor.

I'll have to disagree, a turboprop is driven by a combustion turbine, not a jet. A jet engine's power is derived from thrust, measured in lbs or kg. A turbine engine produces torque, measured in lb/ft. Any "thrust" from the turboprop or turboshaft's engine is an inefficiency, wasted power that should have been applied to the shaft.

 

[LittleInch]

I thin the difference is intended simply a turbine type engine versus a piston engine.

"Jet engine" is just a figurative description. Most passenger planes now are actually turbo fans, not "jet engines" which are now almost exclusively military planes.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Must admit I tend to call them that because they burn JetA.

Your completely right of course.

 

[Garbage1]

Quick Google yields this for turbojet vs turbofan.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

We now have geared fans in the mix as well.

 

[tdmidget]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the turbojet and turbofan are both reaction engines.

 

[IRstuff]

Turboprops, unlike turbofans and turbojets, have relatively smaller air intakes, and they're often behind the propellers. The smaller inlet areas and lower speeds reduce the risk of bird ingestion and damage therefrom

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Turboprops are by far the most reactive to work with as a pilot

The geared fans are bit of a hybrid it's like cowled turbo pro. ..the cores are tiny.