Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Bird Strike and Corporate Jets

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

NJAowner

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2003
Posts
748
First -- today's episode shows the importance of well trained and experienced pilots.

Now I know little about the mechanics of flying and aero engineering, but do apply some logic. Does the location of the jets on a corporate jet (on the tail section) reduce the chance of a bird strike? I would guess that since the engine is not hanging out on a wing, far away from the fuselage, but close to the fuselage, that the fuselage would help disperse many birds before they hit the jet engine. Is this the case?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
NJAowner -- yes, tail mounted engines are significantly less prone to ingesting birds. Here's an article from Transport Canada about the issue:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/bulletins/AWMB18.htm

The article states that, "In a study of 4.3 million aircraft movements (landings or takeoffs), underwing mounted engines ingested birds 4.4 times more often than tail mounted engines of the same size and make using the same airports. Larger engines also ingested birds more often than smaller engines."


The last part is also a factor, because the smaller engines on corporate jets have a smaller frontal area, and are thus less likely to take a bird.


Hope that helps!
 
Yes, but it doesn't lessen the probability of taking a goose through the windscreen.

The following is a collection of birdstrike events since 1905 when Orville Wright hit a bird. There are both commercial and private aircraft involved (a few Citation 550/560s and aft mounted Challenger aircraft as well).

http://www.birdstrike.org/commlink/signif.htm
 
I took a goose through the engine on an ultra. I'm not sure which was bigger the goose or the engine.

I saw the belly go by the window and my partner ducked. (goose). :)

Went in squarely in the engine. No dings on the cowling or anything except for some blood splatter and the smell of thanksgiving you wouldn't have known we had hit it.

We returned to LNK, damn that sucked. We had already spent 4 days there in the winter.
 
I remember a few years ago one of the ad hoc lost a falcon 20 to a double bird strike. Crew ditched in a field just beyond the runway and lived. Sure bigger engines means more engine area exposed but flying through a flock of geese will hurt any airplane.

Tower called an abort for me once in BOS due to an observant controller spotting a large flock on the runway as I started my take off roll. I owe that guy several cases of beer.
 
Both will kill an engine, but I would think Newton's laws of motion dictate the bigger the bird, the more damage will occur.

NJA Owner, I don't know what fleet(s) you fly on, but I know that the Ultra and XL (only Cessna's I've flown) have speed limitations below 8000 ft due to a higher possibility of bird strikes at lower altitudes (262 KIAS and 260 KIAS respectively). I think the engineers were more worried about the birds hitting the windshields than the engines.

USUALLY a bird strike is nothing more than an inconvenience. In my limited experience compared to "Sully" I have had 3 bird strikes with little or no damage done to the airplane.

The passengers on that flight need to go buy lotto tickets NOW. I wonder if another crew was in that cockpit if the results would have been what they were? The chances of ingesting birds in both engines are astronomical. The chances of having a ditch an airliner with no fatalities is even greater. In my opinion, Sully and his crew proved a "no-win" situation is possible. My hat is off to them.

I have never trained on how to ditch a plane, but I have dead-sticked a landing back in primary training (jets only in the simulator). Hopefully Jim Gorman, NetJets VP of training (who was hired from USAir last year), will be able to get AQP up and running soon so we can train situations like this. If you would have told me I should train for this last week, I would have told you that you were crazy.
 
Last edited:
Because of their size I take it geese are worse than seagulls?

Infinitely worse. I know someone who hit 8 seagulls in a King Air and suffered minor damage to several parts of the airplane. Had they been geese it would have been a different story. They are much bigger, heavier, and denser birds.
 
A mature, male Canada Goose weighs about 12 pounds and the females go about eight pounds. Turkey buzzards are also bad ju ju. I remember about 20 years back the Air Force lost a KC135 in Alaska due to multiple Canada Goose strikes on takeoff (can"t remember if they took out 3 or all 4 engines, but the whole crew got killed.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top