超级军网圖霸都沒見過的圖
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/02 18:35:12
The F-111 was flying at 900m on a test bombing raid over Evans Head, in northern NSW, when the pelican struck the fibreglass nose, smashing the radome, before the bird was sucked into an engine.
Repairs to the fighter are expected to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However despite the extensive damage – and an admission from a Defence spokesman that the RAAF has suffered "a few" such serious incidents in its history – Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson yesterday played down the risks for commercial airlines.
Mr Gibson said a single bird strike would not cause as much damage for a commercial plane as it did in the case of the F-111 bomber struck over northern NSW.
"I've never heard of anything as dramatic as that, so there may be unique features about that aircraft that caused that or, I don't know, maybe it was a really fat pelican," he said.
In the case of a commercial jet, Mr Gibson said the most common problem was a bird being sucked into an engine and damaging the blades or a windscreen cracking.
That would not jeopardise the aircraft's ability to land safely, although it could be costly to airlines, he said.
Figures from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau show there were 610 bird strikes around Australia's 10 major airports last year – with Cairns the most dangerous airport for bird strikes.
It recorded 105 incidents within a 5km radius, compared to 100 bird strikes around Sydney airport and 80 around the Brisbane airport, which is next to the Boondall wetlands, an important feeding ground which attracts migratory birds.
To reduce the risk of bird strikes, Brisbane Airport Corporation funded a Queensland University of Technology study into what grasses – and what length of grass – are least likely to attract birds.
The airport also chooses trees to plant which do not produce the type of flowers and seeds sought by birds.
Avionics instructor Max Walker told the Australian Air Force Cadets bulletin board that several F-111 nose pieces were scrapped each year in the air force.
“Having worked on F-111s for 17 years, it wasn't the first and will certainly not be the last,” he wrote.
“When you fly close to the ground, stuff happens!”
He said he was impressed by the pilots’ flying skills without the metal probe on the front of the plane.
“Good flying skills by the two aircrew avoided what could have lead to an ejection, and possible early retirement of a F-111 before its time! Well done all round I say!”
Our own readers had some interesting theories as to what happened.
“I think the bird strike story is baloney,” Sean wrote from the Gold Coast.
“More like a cover up to admit the 34-year-old air force planes are well past their use-by dates. This looks a lot more like a structural failure in the fibreglass.”
Monty of Brisbane wrote: “What motivation would the RAAF have to advertise the incident as a bird strike if it was actually structural failure? Suggestions of a cover up are ridiculous.”
Robocop suggested the pilots’ new codename should be “The Pelican” after safely guiding the plane home.
Bill Grieve of Enoggera said: “Reading some of these comments one would think, a 70kg Pelican built like a tank flying at near 3000 feet committed suicide on behalf of Al Qaeda.''
Los Angeles air force veteran VarkVet said on F-16.net that an F-111 went down in similar circumstances in Scotland in 1984.
“The aircraft went down after striking a large bird (probably a seagull) during a low-level run,”
“The bird shattered the radome (nose piece) which shed pieces into both intakes. The crew ejected and survived.”
Iseneca said on our website that training flights should happen in unpopulated areas to reduce the risk of a plane ditching over houses.
Another writer, Very Concerned, asked how the plane’s sensors did not see the pelican in time to take evasive action.
“Perhaps this event demonstrates that instrument navigation systems are not all they are cracked up to be. What if the Pelican had in fact been a balloon, hang-glider or microlight (glider)?”
On forum militaryphotos.net, Eztyga said: “Barry Hall couldn't have done better.”The F-111 was flying at 900m on a test bombing raid over Evans Head, in northern NSW, when the pelican struck the fibreglass nose, smashing the radome, before the bird was sucked into an engine.
Repairs to the fighter are expected to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However despite the extensive damage – and an admission from a Defence spokesman that the RAAF has suffered "a few" such serious incidents in its history – Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson yesterday played down the risks for commercial airlines.
Mr Gibson said a single bird strike would not cause as much damage for a commercial plane as it did in the case of the F-111 bomber struck over northern NSW.
"I've never heard of anything as dramatic as that, so there may be unique features about that aircraft that caused that or, I don't know, maybe it was a really fat pelican," he said.
In the case of a commercial jet, Mr Gibson said the most common problem was a bird being sucked into an engine and damaging the blades or a windscreen cracking.
That would not jeopardise the aircraft's ability to land safely, although it could be costly to airlines, he said.
Figures from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau show there were 610 bird strikes around Australia's 10 major airports last year – with Cairns the most dangerous airport for bird strikes.
It recorded 105 incidents within a 5km radius, compared to 100 bird strikes around Sydney airport and 80 around the Brisbane airport, which is next to the Boondall wetlands, an important feeding ground which attracts migratory birds.
To reduce the risk of bird strikes, Brisbane Airport Corporation funded a Queensland University of Technology study into what grasses – and what length of grass – are least likely to attract birds.
The airport also chooses trees to plant which do not produce the type of flowers and seeds sought by birds.
Avionics instructor Max Walker told the Australian Air Force Cadets bulletin board that several F-111 nose pieces were scrapped each year in the air force.
“Having worked on F-111s for 17 years, it wasn't the first and will certainly not be the last,” he wrote.
“When you fly close to the ground, stuff happens!”
He said he was impressed by the pilots’ flying skills without the metal probe on the front of the plane.
“Good flying skills by the two aircrew avoided what could have lead to an ejection, and possible early retirement of a F-111 before its time! Well done all round I say!”
Our own readers had some interesting theories as to what happened.
“I think the bird strike story is baloney,” Sean wrote from the Gold Coast.
“More like a cover up to admit the 34-year-old air force planes are well past their use-by dates. This looks a lot more like a structural failure in the fibreglass.”
Monty of Brisbane wrote: “What motivation would the RAAF have to advertise the incident as a bird strike if it was actually structural failure? Suggestions of a cover up are ridiculous.”
Robocop suggested the pilots’ new codename should be “The Pelican” after safely guiding the plane home.
Bill Grieve of Enoggera said: “Reading some of these comments one would think, a 70kg Pelican built like a tank flying at near 3000 feet committed suicide on behalf of Al Qaeda.''
Los Angeles air force veteran VarkVet said on F-16.net that an F-111 went down in similar circumstances in Scotland in 1984.
“The aircraft went down after striking a large bird (probably a seagull) during a low-level run,”
“The bird shattered the radome (nose piece) which shed pieces into both intakes. The crew ejected and survived.”
Iseneca said on our website that training flights should happen in unpopulated areas to reduce the risk of a plane ditching over houses.
Another writer, Very Concerned, asked how the plane’s sensors did not see the pelican in time to take evasive action.
“Perhaps this event demonstrates that instrument navigation systems are not all they are cracked up to be. What if the Pelican had in fact been a balloon, hang-glider or microlight (glider)?”
On forum militaryphotos.net, Eztyga said: “Barry Hall couldn't have done better.”
Repairs to the fighter are expected to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However despite the extensive damage – and an admission from a Defence spokesman that the RAAF has suffered "a few" such serious incidents in its history – Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson yesterday played down the risks for commercial airlines.
Mr Gibson said a single bird strike would not cause as much damage for a commercial plane as it did in the case of the F-111 bomber struck over northern NSW.
"I've never heard of anything as dramatic as that, so there may be unique features about that aircraft that caused that or, I don't know, maybe it was a really fat pelican," he said.
In the case of a commercial jet, Mr Gibson said the most common problem was a bird being sucked into an engine and damaging the blades or a windscreen cracking.
That would not jeopardise the aircraft's ability to land safely, although it could be costly to airlines, he said.
Figures from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau show there were 610 bird strikes around Australia's 10 major airports last year – with Cairns the most dangerous airport for bird strikes.
It recorded 105 incidents within a 5km radius, compared to 100 bird strikes around Sydney airport and 80 around the Brisbane airport, which is next to the Boondall wetlands, an important feeding ground which attracts migratory birds.
To reduce the risk of bird strikes, Brisbane Airport Corporation funded a Queensland University of Technology study into what grasses – and what length of grass – are least likely to attract birds.
The airport also chooses trees to plant which do not produce the type of flowers and seeds sought by birds.
Avionics instructor Max Walker told the Australian Air Force Cadets bulletin board that several F-111 nose pieces were scrapped each year in the air force.
“Having worked on F-111s for 17 years, it wasn't the first and will certainly not be the last,” he wrote.
“When you fly close to the ground, stuff happens!”
He said he was impressed by the pilots’ flying skills without the metal probe on the front of the plane.
“Good flying skills by the two aircrew avoided what could have lead to an ejection, and possible early retirement of a F-111 before its time! Well done all round I say!”
Our own readers had some interesting theories as to what happened.
“I think the bird strike story is baloney,” Sean wrote from the Gold Coast.
“More like a cover up to admit the 34-year-old air force planes are well past their use-by dates. This looks a lot more like a structural failure in the fibreglass.”
Monty of Brisbane wrote: “What motivation would the RAAF have to advertise the incident as a bird strike if it was actually structural failure? Suggestions of a cover up are ridiculous.”
Robocop suggested the pilots’ new codename should be “The Pelican” after safely guiding the plane home.
Bill Grieve of Enoggera said: “Reading some of these comments one would think, a 70kg Pelican built like a tank flying at near 3000 feet committed suicide on behalf of Al Qaeda.''
Los Angeles air force veteran VarkVet said on F-16.net that an F-111 went down in similar circumstances in Scotland in 1984.
“The aircraft went down after striking a large bird (probably a seagull) during a low-level run,”
“The bird shattered the radome (nose piece) which shed pieces into both intakes. The crew ejected and survived.”
Iseneca said on our website that training flights should happen in unpopulated areas to reduce the risk of a plane ditching over houses.
Another writer, Very Concerned, asked how the plane’s sensors did not see the pelican in time to take evasive action.
“Perhaps this event demonstrates that instrument navigation systems are not all they are cracked up to be. What if the Pelican had in fact been a balloon, hang-glider or microlight (glider)?”
On forum militaryphotos.net, Eztyga said: “Barry Hall couldn't have done better.”The F-111 was flying at 900m on a test bombing raid over Evans Head, in northern NSW, when the pelican struck the fibreglass nose, smashing the radome, before the bird was sucked into an engine.
Repairs to the fighter are expected to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However despite the extensive damage – and an admission from a Defence spokesman that the RAAF has suffered "a few" such serious incidents in its history – Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson yesterday played down the risks for commercial airlines.
Mr Gibson said a single bird strike would not cause as much damage for a commercial plane as it did in the case of the F-111 bomber struck over northern NSW.
"I've never heard of anything as dramatic as that, so there may be unique features about that aircraft that caused that or, I don't know, maybe it was a really fat pelican," he said.
In the case of a commercial jet, Mr Gibson said the most common problem was a bird being sucked into an engine and damaging the blades or a windscreen cracking.
That would not jeopardise the aircraft's ability to land safely, although it could be costly to airlines, he said.
Figures from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau show there were 610 bird strikes around Australia's 10 major airports last year – with Cairns the most dangerous airport for bird strikes.
It recorded 105 incidents within a 5km radius, compared to 100 bird strikes around Sydney airport and 80 around the Brisbane airport, which is next to the Boondall wetlands, an important feeding ground which attracts migratory birds.
To reduce the risk of bird strikes, Brisbane Airport Corporation funded a Queensland University of Technology study into what grasses – and what length of grass – are least likely to attract birds.
The airport also chooses trees to plant which do not produce the type of flowers and seeds sought by birds.
Avionics instructor Max Walker told the Australian Air Force Cadets bulletin board that several F-111 nose pieces were scrapped each year in the air force.
“Having worked on F-111s for 17 years, it wasn't the first and will certainly not be the last,” he wrote.
“When you fly close to the ground, stuff happens!”
He said he was impressed by the pilots’ flying skills without the metal probe on the front of the plane.
“Good flying skills by the two aircrew avoided what could have lead to an ejection, and possible early retirement of a F-111 before its time! Well done all round I say!”
Our own readers had some interesting theories as to what happened.
“I think the bird strike story is baloney,” Sean wrote from the Gold Coast.
“More like a cover up to admit the 34-year-old air force planes are well past their use-by dates. This looks a lot more like a structural failure in the fibreglass.”
Monty of Brisbane wrote: “What motivation would the RAAF have to advertise the incident as a bird strike if it was actually structural failure? Suggestions of a cover up are ridiculous.”
Robocop suggested the pilots’ new codename should be “The Pelican” after safely guiding the plane home.
Bill Grieve of Enoggera said: “Reading some of these comments one would think, a 70kg Pelican built like a tank flying at near 3000 feet committed suicide on behalf of Al Qaeda.''
Los Angeles air force veteran VarkVet said on F-16.net that an F-111 went down in similar circumstances in Scotland in 1984.
“The aircraft went down after striking a large bird (probably a seagull) during a low-level run,”
“The bird shattered the radome (nose piece) which shed pieces into both intakes. The crew ejected and survived.”
Iseneca said on our website that training flights should happen in unpopulated areas to reduce the risk of a plane ditching over houses.
Another writer, Very Concerned, asked how the plane’s sensors did not see the pelican in time to take evasive action.
“Perhaps this event demonstrates that instrument navigation systems are not all they are cracked up to be. What if the Pelican had in fact been a balloon, hang-glider or microlight (glider)?”
On forum militaryphotos.net, Eztyga said: “Barry Hall couldn't have done better.”
嗬嗬，確確實實沒有見過！:D
E文不好
这是怎么回事啊:o
这是怎么回事啊:o
袋鼠国的111尽出怪事，这个好像是起落架放不下，二人盘旋了几个小时，迫降！;P
呵呵，大意是这样，雷达测试的时候，撞鸟了pelican：鹈鹕
:D 90%撞上了会飞的袋鼠。
雷达罩是木头做的:o 还是竹编的??
这纤维太畸形了~
这纤维太畸形了~
上面还有血迹。
象是是竹编的~~~~~~~~~;P ;P
原帖由 sion22 于 2008-4-20 21:42 发表
上面还有血迹。
鸟的;P
我还以为飞机头都是金属的…… 看来J6以上就不适用了……:L
原帖由 肥兔子 于 2008-4-20 22:38 发表
我还以为飞机头都是金属的…… 看来J6以上就不适用了……:L
除非是飞3M以上高速的，飞机头由于要安装雷达，所以多是专门针对无线电信的复合材料，一般是玻璃钢！这飞机没搞明白到底是刚钻过草堆，还是什么东西把雷达罩给揭了皮，但是我所接触过的玻璃钢，再偷工减料，树脂含量也都没有低到能够让纤维如杂草般模样散开的程度。
严重不解！
鸟先撞到了雷达罩上，然后滑进进气道，这玻璃钢也太恶了八，咋就烂成这样
;funk ;funk 这这..也太畸形了吧!
迫降还敢放钩？？？
会摔得很惨滴~~~~~~~~;funk
会摔得很惨滴~~~~~~~~;funk
怎么成丝状了,什么材料啊
扭了才会这样吧
扭了才会这样吧
我靠,这下算长见识了.;funk
复合材料编织的吧。
不过我感觉怎么看怎么象被熊猫啃过的竹子。
不过我感觉怎么看怎么象被熊猫啃过的竹子。
其实就是竹子做的:D :D
现在美帝鸡的头锥似乎不用这种工艺了，谁来科普一下~
原帖由 东方亮 于 2008-4-21 11:23 发表
现在美帝鸡的头锥似乎不用这种工艺了，谁来科普一下~
这就是美帝的鸡~~~~~~~~~;P ;P ;P
树脂纤维材料
根本看不到足够的树脂
树脂会把玻璃纤维板结在一起，碎的时候也是像塑料一样一块块的，哪有这个草席样？
难道是要轻量不要强度么.....
树脂会把玻璃纤维板结在一起，碎的时候也是像塑料一样一块块的，哪有这个草席样？
难道是要轻量不要强度么.....
这个首见,,不错,哈哈.
原帖由 捕鱼郎 于 2008-4-21 11:32 发表
树脂纤维材料
树脂含量严重不足,这头锥的树脂简直就是表面的一层漆皮!中间几乎没有树脂!否则不会出这种草编效果!