Free Republic

Ping to NYT and CNN reporting on alleged martial law discussion in Oval Office...

STC

You are very welcome, WH57! I stirred myself from my torpor to post that.

You are very welcome, WH57! I stirred myself from my torpor to post that.

LucyT:

Ping to this link and this thread reply! This link is to a forensics analysis of Barry’s BC showing five fonts, at least two of which didn’t exist in 1961, Ariel and New Times Roman (from memory).

It is not clear whether Barry is “trolling Trump,” as the article suggests, or whether his guilty conscience is speaking!

STC

Better story says FAA is using Virginia Tech to do the reseach and has two simulated videos of crashes of 8 lbs and 4 lbs drones into turbofans.

https://www.911security.com/news/this-is-what-happens-when-a-drone-gets-sucked-into-a-jet-engine-video

A deliberate attack on POTUS could easily employ a drone in excess of 8 lbs.

A quick search shows Virginia Tech has done some detailed simulations showing how an 8 lb drone can destroy a turbofan. They conclude that turbofans need to be redesigned to handle this risk!

https://www.uasvision.com/2015/11/09/drone-strikes-could-cause-jet-engine-failure/

“757 can fly on one engine”

As discussed in the other thread, if one engine gets knocked off the wing, the airframe becomes unstable. This has been the experience in bird strike and other situations where the turbofan explodes and goes off the pylon. Several 747 and 2-engine wide-bodies have been lost due the bird strikes when thrust on one side of the airframe is lost on a plane that is supposed to fly with loss of one turbofan.

Drone strikes, intentional or accidental, could be expected to be similar or worse due to very hard parts in some drones compared to birds.

Note: This is the 757 2-engine version Boeing used to carry POTUS to smaller airports, not the 747 4-engine Boeing version used for larger airports.

The 757 could be much more vulnerable to a single drone strike knocking out one turbofan during final approach.

See discussion in earlier thread:

"Air Force One Just Had A Near Miss With A Drone According To Reporter Onboard"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3875304/posts?page=69

“The glideslopes and paths they have been modified as needed recently.”

I am glad to hear this, TBM. I would recommend random modification of ILS glide path touchdown point for all
AF1 landings, assuming that runway length will safely allow it!

The AF1 designation is reserved ONLY for the actual plane that POTUS is flying on, so if it is a 747, then that is AF1. If it is a 757, then the 757 is AF1. That is how the article refers correctly to the 757 plane...as AF1.

There is NO specific 747 AF1. We are just so used to seeing POTUS using a 747 in that role. I admit that it seems strange to see a 757 referred to as AF1!

“But the aircraft would fly on 3.”

However, on this particular day, AF1 was a 757-200 with only 2 turbofans. If one turbofan were to ingest a drone and explode and worst case drop from the wing, this would leave only one engine with thrust on the opposite wing, and then the airframe could be highly prone to flip.

If a single drone has turned up now, drone swarms are being experimented with around the world that could be placed (parked) in the ILS glide path of AF1 in an ambush on very short notice to increase probability of a strike.

STC

“The aircraft is heavily designed to take a hit and stay in the air. There was talk in the thread about an engine shutdown.”

There is a big problem should one or more AF1 turbofans on the same side ingest a drone and then disintegrate and fall off the wing, possibly causing the airframe to become uncontrollably unstable and flip over.

See Yukla 27 AWACS crash:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Alaska_Boeing_E-3_Sentry_accident

“As far your information on those Glideslopes and Paths is kinda dated (hint hint).”

The only “information” I have is that a drone was claimed to have been observed virtually IN the glidepath of AF1.

Drones sold today are supposed to be locked OUT of being anywhere NEAR AF1 glidepaths. So right there we have a problem.

“...would a passenger even be able to see a smallish drone hovering nearby?”

I would, with proper lighting, sufficient minimal distance from the aircraft and color on the drone and background contrast!

“Loosing and engine on approach isn’t that difficult to deal with.”

Losing power on one of two engines, maybe, but having an engine fall OFF the plane resulting from the turbofan exploding causing the plane to flip or losing BOTH engines off the wings...??? Another story, I suspect.

See prior reply:

“Not necessary to put an explosive device on the drone as the drone is itself a kinetic weapon (has sufficient mass) against a turbofan (see bird strikes).”

Not necessary to put an explosive device on the drone as the drone is itself a kinetic weapon (has sufficient mass) against a turbofan (see bird strikes).

“I would think if you sucked one into the an engine while landing it could get ugly.”

Landing or takeoff! AWACs have been brought down by Canada Geese. They are based on 707 airframes. Remember “Miracle on the Hudson”? It would be just like any bird strike into a turbofan. Potentially fatal up to knocking the turbofan off of the wing.

Not if one of the turbofans ingested the drone. The turbofans would be the likely target of the drone, not the cockpit.

Drone swarm! That right there is a big problem should one or both AF1 turbofans ingest a drone and then disintegrate and fall off the wing, possibly causing the airframe to become uncontrollably unstable and flip over.