Vault

Hi Groove, can you remember where you got the above picture from?, I know the picture is pretty much self explanatory but is there a technical article or pdf regarding the performance of the JSF's RCS against various radar frequency/wavelengths that was linked to the above picture?. I'd really like to read it if there is. Thanks.

Borchi whilst I can't speak for the US, in the UK and I think the EU the safe working load (SWL) of all metals is 1:3 of the tensile critical working load (MBL), IE if a metal component is rated with a SWL of 9G the metal component will reach its minimal critical tensile point at 27 G, the 5:1 SWL factor you state is used for soft materials like harness webbing because they're more prone to wear and tear. Are you sure that an F-111's airframe has a 1:5 G SWL factor?. *Edit* Forgot to state that the figures above are UK civilian saftey system regulations and not military.

Does anybody have an official or reliable wing load figure for the NG?

Thanks for the reply, I think you're right, I'm looking for something that isn't there.

I can't find anything on the FAA website. It's got to be CNN or someone else which is Pretty irresponsible tbh, announcements like that should only ever be made by the FAA.

Now that is interesting, can you define who "they" are? FAA? NTSB?...

I haven't got a clue that's why I asked, I understand the first letter of each designation denotes a certain weapon system, I just don't understand the logic behind NATO's labelling and designating terminology.

Any SHORAD/IADS system that has the type of mobility that the Pantsir has is a formidable foe and a hard target especially when DL'd to huge search/aquastion multi metric VHF radars that are impervious to ARM's, Is the high mobility of the Pantsir-S1 SHORAD system the reason why NATO named it the Greyhound?.

ARM's weren't very suppresive against the Serbian P-18 spoon radar that was observing those F-117's in Serbia was it? ARM's can't see any wavelengths that are 50% longer than the ARM's receiving antenna. Old Soviet style VHF search radars are able to employ multi metre wavelengths. Hats off to the Serb's, Whoever thought about removing the and dare I mention it, the Faraday cage from those microwave ovens to create an effective x band decoy transmitter that fooled many NATO ARM's was brilliant. Multi million dollar missiles fooled by microwave ovens... how embarrasing.

That comment wasn't aimed at you. ;)

The fire was caused by the heat from ESD striking the crown skin which caused the Mylar backed fibreglass insualtion lining to ignite, which was easily extinguished by a fire extiguisher if Mylar hadn't been banned by the FAA after a bad accident in Novi Sad, Serbia, which was not related to ESD, we'd of seen many ESD related indirect accidents and I wouldn't be here advocating the saftey of Airliners and ESD, but Mylar backed insualtion was banned by the FAA and presents no futre risk to any airliner. I never said that an ESD strike wouldn't cause damage, that is part of the design. As I'd already stated I'm not advocating for any commercial aircraft that doesn't use static wicks as an ESD precaution.

This is the NTSB link you posted http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2001/A01_83_87.pdf at the bottom of the page it states the incident number is correct. Those links you posted are the type of behaviour for airliners struck by lightning, the planes landed safely and no one was harmed. Keep looking on the NTSB website you'll find thoudsands of incident reports of airliners being hit by lightning but you wont find any where it has caused the airline to crash.

I've already read about the NTSB NYC99IA231 incident. This incident had no relation to any lightning strike, direct or indirect. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19854&ntsbno=NYC99IA231&akey=1

There's not a scrap of evidence to support what your claiming, it pure speculation on your behalf. The lack of any airliners that have crashed from positive lightning as well as the official NASA fact files backs the evidence I put before you earlier. Say what you want but the fact remains positive lightning has not forced one airliner out of the skies.

No plane has crashed from an ESD strike since 1963, these statistics speak for themselves, planes are not dropping out of the skies from any type of ESD,where's all these crashed planes from positive lightning considering there airline killers? there are none, Its your judgement that's flawed. Not mine, where are the airlines that are decompressing at FL350 from positive lightning?,show me an airline that's crashed from positive lightning! good luck hunting because there are none... Real life says positive lightning has never brought an airliner down... it's you coming to your own conclusions without one peice of evidence. Here's my evidence http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=700213&postcount=93 and there all official NASA, FAA and cencus links, now if I'm so wrong prove me wrong.

You're correct, A larger diameter missile has more displacement and higher drag, 2 stage rockets have superiour sustained speed and range. You're trying to reason with someone who thinks the 9-X is the be all and end all to all SRM. Don't waste your time. :)

Like I said before you can take a horse to the water... ;)

Seriously do you think about what you say? Do you really think glass offers less resistance than aluminium?. A Faraday cage is a completley closed system.;)

I didn't know that, why is an aircraft nothing close to a closed system.

Woah, you're taking this as some type of personal insult, I'm not being rude to you and I'm here for the discussion, it's on topic. I'm not a yes man, and no one has shown me any reason to think differently. It's not Vault's theory on plane saftey. As i said before, I'm only reiterating the words of Faraday, I'm not calling you a liar I know that cars can catch alight afterall lightning can reach tempratures of 50K degrees Fahrenheit.

1 is normal. The airplane didn't crash the pilot was able to land. 2 I don't have Adobe installed so I cant read it. 3 Is the only airliner to of crashed from ESD. See my previous post above.

Yeah I did read about positive lightning on the Nasa database http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/lightningmech.htm according to NASA they're very common in all thunderstorms and they state "It makes up less than 10 percent of a storm’s lightning strikes and typically takes place at the end of a storm" so considering on average every commercial passenger airline is hit by lightning at least once a year it must mean that 10% of the US fleet of commercial passenger airliners encounter positive lightning every year, according to this 2003 US Statistical Abstract of the United States 2003 cencus http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001573.html there are 7,900 airliners in the US? so 10% of 7,900 = 790, so statistically 790 aircraft have encountered positive lightning with zero losses, so if airliners are unable to withstand positive lightning where are the 790 crashed airliners?, there are none. NASA states "It generates current levels up to twice as high and of longer duration than those produced by a negative bolt". Even NASA say it only has "the potential to cause more damage". If 10% of aircraft were at risk of crashing from positive lightning no one would fly. Would you take a 10% risk on your life?. Somethings wrong here, the numbers just don't add up. Even the FAA have nothing about positive lightning being terminal to all airliners. I searched there database using Google. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=positive+lightning&oi=navquery_searchbox&sa=X&as_sitesearch=faa.gov&hl=en&tbo=1 The Pan Am 707 that crashed in 1963 was a lesson well heeded by Boeing, it had virtually none of the saftey systems that modern airliners have now, when Boeing retrofitted the 707 with the new saftey features no more 707's were lost to ESD. AFAIK it's the only airliner to of gone down because of ESD. Every circuit and piece of equipment that is critical or essential to the safe flight and landing of an aircraft must be verified by the manufacturers to be protected against lightning in accordance with regulations of the FAA. The reason why pilots report radar and flight instrument loss is because there located under a GRP radome that is outside of the protection of the Faraday cage. It's not me who's saying that it's impossible to get electricity inside a Faraday cage, Faraday, Gauss and many other respected people say that not me, you're disagreeing with them. I'm only reiterating their words. "all electricity goes up to the free surface of the bodies without diffusing in their interior substance". It's GRP like I said before GRP is a poor conductor. Please can you post the link to this thread. Please post the links to the webpages these pictures come from. I believe you and I'd like to see the pilot's account of what happened, is there any chance you can send me the link to his webpage, and if possible can you show me the webpage where you stated that "I have pics of lighting strikes that have made a hole in one part of the aircraft and then came out the opposite side, burnt straight through exterior/interior walls". He's talking about planes from the 40's - 60's. He doesn't mention any modern day airliners, AFAIK the only airliner lost to ESD was in 1963 when the saftey systems were primative compared to todays airliner as I already stated earlier in this post. The real Coup de Grace is actually in the paragraph below his statement.

Death is possible at 50mA from respiratory arrest, especially from a DC supply. 60mA has been known to give people Ventricular fibrillation. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/construction/electrical_incidents/eleccurrent.html 45 amps is the the amp hour rating, the battery will supply 45 amps for one hour, all car batteries also have a cold crank amp rating as well, 300+ CCA is about the average for any where between 10 - 30 seconds, in minus -0 temperatures some car batteries are able to supply over 1000 CCA's!. You're very confident you can't get a nasty shock of a 12v battery PM me I'll show you how to get a really nasty shock off a 12v car battery. Believe it or not one man has died from a 9v battery, he never meant to kill himself, but accidents do happen, but it does prove low voltage and low amps can kill too. http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html

My implication from the start was that that Airbus is impervious to ESD. If there's access points then it's not a Faraday cage is it, I'd like to see a link for that information. If I'm playing with statistics then there in favour of my opinion because AFAIK no commercial airline has crashed from ESD that utilized the protection of both Faraday's cage and static wicks.

Woah, who said it was impossible? If you read my original post I used the word impervious. I didn't know a Faraday cage can be penetrated, now that's news to me! btw do you have a link for that information? Because I've never heard of it. You're putting words into my mouth, I never said it was impossible, infact I only ever said it was impossible for Faraday's cage not to earth. which I still stand by. AFAIK no commercial airliner that uses a Faraday cage and static wicks for protection has ever crashed. That article is regarding military aircraft, I'm talking about commercial airliners, commercial airliners use static wicks to remove any excess ESD off the skin. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0234.shtml