h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
First layer or two of turbo jet fans hardened to grind up
drones.
Slats on the cowling of the engine swing open to allow the
ground up parts to fly out.
And like the previous post said, intelligent drone swarms
are the weapon of the future.
Also like the previous post said, our enemies
are
usually pretty stupid.
WS-125
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125
"Two General Electric J87 turbofan engines were successfully powered to nearly full thrust" [8th of 7, Jan 01 2019]
[link]
|
| |
//very thin, 1/8" or so blades// |
|
| |
<Wanders away, muttering about intake turbulence/> |
|
| |
//our enemies are usually pretty stupid// I see a problem. |
|
| |
//very thin, 1/8" or so blades// |
|
| |
Now you'd only turn these when there are drone threats of
course. Then you'd feather them and there'd be very little
disruption of air flow. |
|
| |
OK, let me try this again. |
|
| |
Is this not what was once known as a propellor? |
|
| |
Well, no, an additional propeller would disrupt the
airflow
like 8 said before he walked away in disgust. This is just a
hardened front part of the first few existing compressor
blades with slats around the cowling that open to let the
destroyed drone pieces out. |
|
| |
That being said, I'd like to see what happens when you try
to
fly a drone into a turboprop's intake in a wind tunnel. I'm
guessing turboprops might already be incarnations of this
basic idea. |
|
| |
Furthermore, a contra-rotating dual propeller turboprop
like the Russian TU... whatever they're called, might
naturally be completely impervious to drone attack. At
least as far as its turbine intakes are concerned. |
|
| |
Tupolev Tu-95, NATO reporting name: "Bear". |
|
| |
Turboprops are fairly drone-resistant, much more so than fanjets, altho a Lockheed L-188 Electra with Allison powerplants was lost at Logan (Boston) due to bird ingestion. |
|
| |
// first few existing compressor blades with slats around the cowling that open to let the destroyed drone pieces out. // |
|
| |
Do you mean the fan ? If you vent the region around the first compressor turbine, then it will stop compressing, which from an engine point of view is a Bad Thing. If you vent around the fan, you can cause resonances which then trigger surges in the core, which are also Very Bad. |
|
| |
Any venting system is still going to have to be able to fully contain a catastrophic disc failure. |
|
| |
//compressor turbine, then it will stop compressing// |
|
| |
Yea, the fan, but the slots are closed air tight until an
object strike is detected, then they fly open to let the
pieces fly out. |
|
| |
They would open at an angle such that the pieces are
directed backwards. The flaps would be hardened as well. |
|
| |
After the drone is chewed up and spit out the cowling
flaps would snap shut again and the passengers could all
laugh at the enemy who is stupid, as are most of our
enemies. Plus they're smelly and ugly. (the enemy, not
the passengers) |
|
| |
Or at least they are when we finish with them. |
|
| |
Turbofan designs are already strongly influenced by
the requirement to manage an impact event. The fan
blades are generally made of titanium, as are the
first few core compressor stages. In reality most of
the junk that gets ingested by the fan doesn't enter
the core engine anyway because 90% of the airflow
is bypassed directly into the cold nozzle. I can't see
that a further series of vents in the outer engine
cowling would improve matters since the debris is
already on its way out anyway. |
|
| |
Debris ingested into the core engine is much more
serious. Some engines do have a kind of vent in the
core intake system which would help to spit out
debris before it gets too far through. Best to arrange
for it not to get there in the first place though. |
|
| |
Some future aircraft concepts do away with the
traditional turbofan arrangement and feature a
single gas generator powering multiple fans
distributed around the aircraft. I think these
concepts could be made more impact tolerant
simply by having a non forward facing intake to the
gas generator. |
|
| |
The obvious answer is to have the turbines inside the plane. |
|
| |
But seriously, can we conclude that there is no way to stop
crap getting into the engine(s), be it screens (moving or not
moving), flypaper, concentric circles of toffee apples, holy
water, string or any of these in combination etc. |
|
| |
You definitely need to keep hammers out of the intake, too. |
|
| |
// a single gas generator powering multiple fans distributed around the aircraft. // ... which was the concept underlying one of the USAF's nuclear-powered aircraft designs. |
|
| |
Perhaps what's needed is an ability to locally
suppress frequencies operating on the drone remote
control range, and to make it more difficult to
acquire any that operate outside of that range. How
the second is accomplished I'll not hazard a guess. |
|
| |
Maybe they should manufacture drones out of
frozen chickens? |
|
| |
Presumably drones can be autonomously programmed. You
know to within a few feet where the engine intake will be as
the plane approaches the end of the runway for takeoff. Just
pre-programme the drone to go there and wait, and release it
so it just has time to get there. |
|
| |
Escort interceptor drones? |
|
| |
Probably want them to be jet powered and equipped
with nets rather than weapons that would just break
it up creating a debris cloud. |
|
| |
// any that operate outside of that range. How the second is accomplished I'll not hazard a guess. // |
|
| |
With extreme difficulty, if at all, if the drone uses 3G/4G telephony as its control link. WCDMA is intentionally highly resistant to interference, intentional or unintentional. |
|
| |
// Presumably drones can be autonomously programmed. // |
|
| |
Yes - if not the basic ones, a Raspberry Pi will cheaply add the functionality you want. |
|
| |