Comments on: Why don’t commercial Jetliners have grills on their engines in order to prevent bird strikes?

By: stangace20

stangace20 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:08:59 +0000

because it would act like a grater at speed/full power
References :

By: Firefox

Firefox — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:23:59 +0000

We need a grill against questions that have been asked for 1000 times or more!

Adding to Pilot T’s detailed description, have you ever thought of ice formation on these grills at high altitudes?

Here is a few of earlier questions
References :
http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=Ak4rDugMIgLr6yN43CMCnDUjzKIX;_ylv=3?keywords_filter=all&p=jet+engine+grill&keywords_search=%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3ESearch+Answers%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E&keywords_search=%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3E%3CSPAN%3ESearch+Answers%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3E

By: RGTIII

RGTIII — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:09:59 +0000

Because the engine against a bird has a 90% chance of just killing the bird. When the bird hits the metal grate in front of the engine and takes it into the engine with it, the engine has a 0% chance of surviving the strike without catastrophic damage.
References :

By: Warbird Pilot

Warbird Pilot — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:41:59 +0000

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to answering questions....
References :

By: pilot T

pilot T — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:35:59 +0000

This question has gotten asked a million times by our resident troll, but I don’t think you are one. You’ve been around longer and there are a few other tip offs, so:

A bird going through a turbine engine usually does not destroy the engine. You end up with fricasse’e bird.

First, the extra weight of the screen is cost prohibitive and not fuel efficient. The drag caused by the screen is also not fuel efficient.

Second, the screen would decrease the airflow to the engine further reducing engine efficiency.

Thirdly, pieces of the screen or grille could break off and ruin the turbine blades permanently and cause catastrophic damage in flight.

Fourth, it’s better to just let the bird go through the engine, chances are that you might get a little puff of smoke and have no damage to the turbine. Hopefully you do not cause a flame out like Sulley’s; You end up with chopped bird.

The better approach is to rid the airport areas of bird populations. There are a lot of different methods already used. Methods include: dogs, pulsing strobes, sound and light repellers, killing, nets, supersonic noisemakers, scare devices and habitat manipulation to make the airport environment unfriendly to bird populations.
References :

By: MBZ

MBZ — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:54:59 +0000

It would probably not help and be sucked in, so what is the point? Also it would reduce the airflow.
References :
I have got BRAINS. (I Think.)

By: .

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:26:59 +0000

What a remarkably unique solution. I'm going to run this one straight down to the patent office. Those poor buggers haven't had a good belly chuckle since I came up with the aircraft constructed of black box materials.
References :

By: Dawid

Dawid — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:53:59 +0000

A jet engine on a B777 can produce up to 115,000 lbs. of thrust. If you would place a grill on that B777 engine and apply full throttle even an animal the size of a cow would be sucked in without a problem.
References :

By: irhkmj

irhkmj — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:12:59 +0000

because it will seriously throw off the efficiency of the engine. That and pressure over time will suck the grill in. Jet engines are some of the most powerful machines ever mad. They are so powerful that PEOPLE get sucked in and in some cases survived they are sucked in so fast.
References :

By: Viola At Neon

Viola At Neon — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:57:59 +0000

Frequently asked question (troll?)

Because the solution, with the resulting effect on airflow, cost and weight, is worse than the problem it purports to solve.

Besides, where would the kamikaze pilots put their flight data recorders?
References :