FutureUALpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
I would imagine that it is there as an anti-missile defense system, i.e. drops flares or chaff or something like that, should anybody fire on the airplane.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 2): Notice the Bulged fairings at the Left Aft
No I don't.
Can you narrow it down using the actual names of airplane parts or landmarks in the picture?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
What you are looking at is the Elta Flight Guard system. It drops flares if a missile launch is detected.
Onetogo From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5): What you are looking at is the Elta Flight Guard system. It drops flares if a missile launch is detected.
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
Quoting 2enginesonly (Reply 6): There seems to be a strange bulge right below the apu exhaust as well.....part of the same system??
Correct, this is the Infra red that detects the missile, the bulged fairings on the aft are the part wich will release the flare etc. but the bump under the APU is only to detect the missiles.
Kaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4125 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 9): Correct, this is the Infra red that detects the missile, the bulged fairings on the aft are the part wich will release the flare etc. but the bump under the APU is only to detect the missiles.
Looks like the strobe light to me...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Here are the competing American systems for airliner self-protection. Both work by detecting the missile launch and then firing a laser into the homing head to confuse the missile and force it to break lock.
This is the Northrop Grumman Guardian system, which is pod mounted:
This is the BAE Systems JetEye system, which has its boxes internally mounted:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8): I imagine some sort of evasive maneuvers are also in order once the threat indicator beeps.
With these systems, the pilot is not supposed to maneuver. Keeping the aircraft on a predictable flight path helps the system deal with the missile.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3040 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 11):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
I imagine some sort of evasive maneuvers are also in order once the threat indicator beeps.
With these systems, the pilot is not supposed to maneuver. Keeping the aircraft on a predictable flight path helps the system deal with the missile.
Good info. This is hardly typical of missile evasion but I imagine the expected threat is a rather low tech infrared AA missile so it makes sense.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Analog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2869 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 14): http://www.ifri.org/files/CFE/Flight...'Elta%20Flight%20Guard%20system'
Interesting link
regds
Note the 1/1000 false alarm rate claimed by the manufacturer. This is somewhat scary for a civilian flare-based system. 0.1% of flights is a lot more common than missile launches at airliners. Imagine if every airliner had this... lots of fireballs from the sky.
How does this system prevent setting buildings, brush, etc. on fire (flares @ low altitude = really bad, right?) and killing people in the process? Other systems use lasers, which would only blind people .
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2859 times:
Quoting Analog (Reply 15): How does this system prevent setting buildings, brush, etc. on fire (flares @ low altitude = really bad, right?) and killing people in the process? Other systems use lasers, which would only blind people
Presumably the possibility of a flare hitting a building or person is weighed against the advantage of not being hit by a missile. But you have a point.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Lredlefsen From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 11): With these systems, the pilot is not supposed to maneuver. Keeping the aircraft on a predictable flight path helps the system deal with the missile.
Holy shnikeys -- that would take a *lot* of faith in the system. "Inbound missile detected -- please fly straight and level."
Quoting Analog (Reply 15): Imagine if every airliner had this... lots of fireballs from the sky.
It would make spotting so much more interesting, wouldn't it? In fact, if you could figure out how to trigger a false positive (given the 1/1000 rate, that doesn't seem too hard to pull off), it could make for some really cool photos...
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Quoting Analog (Reply 15): Note the 1/1000 false alarm rate claimed by the manufacturer. This is somewhat scary for a civilian flare-based system. 0.1% of flights is a lot more common than missile launches at airliners. Imagine if every airliner had this... lots of fireballs from the sky.
They are using a special flare that burns outside the visible spectrum and is gone well before it hits the ground. In fact, its not really even a flare, just wafers of a special material.
Analog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 18):
They are using a special flare that burns outside the visible spectrum and is gone well before it hits the ground. In fact, its not really even a flare, just wafers of a special material.
And if a MANPAD is launched when the AC is rotating? Are the wafers intelligent (timed)?
Clearly the wafers must emit IR (for IR homing missiles)... Why not visible, other than the fact that a visible flare would look bad if it were a false alarm? The probabilities say that virtually all flare launches would be false alarms for a civilian airliner, even for an airline like LY.