Hi all,
thanks for taking the time to look and comment
Yes - kt meant KiloTonnes - the range I quoted may be a bit on the low side though (upto 500kiloTonnes may be more appropriate)
No, we are not looking at laundry cleanliness, although I guess the dry cleaning bill afterwards would be significant (and that of the seats) - another paper there I feel ;-)
Yes, we are talking about meteors/small comets
Shrapnel - yes, point taken, but I am not looking to take an aircraft out, rather the opposite, looking to see if the aircrew can do anything to mitigate the effect of an external event. Initial first reading seems to suggest turning towards the event until the shockwave has passed causes less damage to the airframe. Now we need to consider residual dust and the effect on the engines - has this been sorted out since the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcano events?
Shockwaves from supersonic transports may be relevant, especially for the phase where the object is travelling at high speed in the atmosphere prior to disruption
Although I am not looking at the specifics of the design of aircraft intended to deliver nuclear weapons (and survive the nuclear blast), the description of how the shockwave interacts with the airframe and how the aircraft behaves as the shockwave passes would be useful. I am minded of research on Alaskan crab fishing boats where it was found that the least favourable option in a storm was to run with the wind/sea, and the most favourable option was to turn into the storm.
Thanks again
Dave
[email protected]