"Uncontained Engine Failure."

[dogmush]

The issue with DU is that if you put a 30mm DU round, or a 120mm APFSDS round, through an armored vehicle some of it will get ablated on the way through and settle in fine dust inside (and outside in a fan from the exit hole).  That dust can get blown around, or breathed by folks looking over the wrecks for salvage and breathing in Uranium is not good.  As AJ said, heavy metal toxicity is a bigger problem than any radiation.

You can hold a chunk of it with no ill effects.  Just don't grind on it or give it to a Marine (they put everything in their mouths).

[kgbsquirrel]

BTW, we may have used some Depleted Uranium during the first Gulf war but had to download and go straight HEI after the tank threat was taken care of. Didn’t use any during Iraq freedom. 

I have a couple of empty cases and a few mock ups on plaques I received over the years. All from blue tip practice rounds of course....lol

The use of DU ammo leaves whatever you shoot a dusty mess of heavy metal poisoning.  The uranium burns to sub micron particulate that laughs at gas mask filters.

[WLJ]

I love the smell of uranium in the morning, it smells like...... Chernobyl

[kgbsquirrel]

I love the smell of uranium in the morning, it smells like...... Chernobyl

Do you taste metal?

[K Frame]

I love the smell of uranium in the morning, it smells like...... Chernobyl

But no one loves the smell of Uranus...

[230RN]

Quote from: Nick1911 on February 21, 2021, 08:47:43 PM

Isn't depleted uranium just a pile of dense, very unradioactive, U238?

I was starting to wonder about that. I thought the major danger was fire  and chemical toxicity when the projectiles splattered. I must be thinking of something else.
 
kgbsquirrel answered:

Less radioactive.  But yeah.

P.S.: This thread is responsible for me losing five hours to videos of home made turbojet engines.  Worth it.

Then you didn't "lose" five hours, you just used it up.  Now I don't know if I should apologize for the thread or not.

Terry, 230RN

[kgbsquirrel]

 
kgbsquirrel answered:
Than you didn't "lose" five hours, you just used it up.  Now I don't know if I should apologize for the thread or not.

Terry, 230RN

Dude took the turbine rotor and stator from the APU of a tornado fighter bomber and proceeded to build a working turbojet with variable nozzle and afterburner.   

[230RN]

What's he going to mount it in?

Correcting my Original Post in this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90

Edited to correct:  Later information is it was a Pratt and Whitney PW 4000 112 engine.

I wonder if they still put the traditional penny in their jet engines.

[kgbsquirrel]

https://youtu.be/f6JoJj_v9Cs

Pics of the engine and fuselage. 

[Northwoods]

The GAU-8 fires a 30mm round, not 20.

This is a GAU-8 round next to a .30-06...

Bet someone has made a handgun for that.

[Lennyjoe]

https://youtu.be/f6JoJj_v9Cs

Pics of the engine and fuselage.

Looks like one of the hollow fan blades fractured and started the chain reaction

[kgbsquirrel]

Looks like one of the hollow fan blades fractured and started the chain reaction

At about second 18 it looks like of the broken blades is stuck in the bottom of the turbine housing.

No exit holes on the inboard face of the engine housing (that I can see) so the damage to the aircraft main body at the wing root was probably from a piece of cowling.

[WLJ]

Do you taste metal?

[Angel Eyes]

[230RN]

^ Clever and funny, but unfair. Boeing used several engines on that aircraft.  I picked up somewhere that that type P&W engine had a "history," but not apparently quite enough to declare it not airworthy.

I'm still wondering if P&W still mounts a penny in every engine.

[MillCreek]

^^^I am told by my many local Boeing neighbors and friends that modern jet engines are so reliable these days is that all Boeing does is mount the complete engine on the pylons.  They don't do any engine assembly or work other than making sure it starts up and completes the checklist.  As I drive by Paine Field, I often see umounted jet engines, securely shrink-wrapped, sitting on stands outside the assembly building waiting to be mounted on the airframe.

[Jim147]

We had to start putting diapers on drag engines years ago. Maybe that would keep a few parts out of yards but maybe a lot more parts in other yards.

[230RN]

^^^I am told by my many local Boeing neighbors and friends that modern jet engines are so reliable these days is that all Boeing does is mount the complete engine on the pylons.  They don't do any engine assembly or work other than making sure it starts up and completes the checklist.  As I drive by Paine Field, I often see umounted jet engines, securely shrink-wrapped, sitting on stands outside the assembly building waiting to be mounted on the airframe.

Yeah, I understand (from someone on this board) that they had to extend the usual maintenance inspection periods for piston engines because they were finding almost no wear and tear on the turbines in the usual reciprocating engine inspection cycle times.

Jeeze, 118,000 lb of thrust.  ! !  Did I read that right?  Almost 60 tons.  What do they need a runway for?

[WLJ]

Jeeze, 118,000 lb of thrust.  ! !  Did I read that right?  Almost 60 tons.  What do they need a runway for?

Barely keeping pace with American weight gain

[230RN]

And they need the runway to stop all that mass on landing.

[Fly320s]

Jeeze, 118,000 lb of thrust.  ! !  Did I read that right?  Almost 60 tons.  What do they need a runway for?

That is factory-new maximum rated thrust.  As the engine wears, it loses thrust, so a 10 year old engine might only make 95% of that number. 

We don't use maximum thrust for every takeoff, just like you don't use full throttle in your car every time.  Full thrust takeoffs are expensive, so we use the minimum required thrust plus a safety margin in case one engine fails. 

[dogmush]

That is factory-new maximum rated thrust.  As the engine wears, it loses thrust, so a 10 year old engine might only make 95% of that number. 

We don't use maximum thrust for every takeoff, just like you don't use full throttle in your car every time.  Full thrust takeoffs are expensive, so we use the minimum required thrust plus a safety margin in case one engine fails.

Wait, What?  You don't?  Why not?

[Brad Johnson]

That is factory-new maximum rated thrust.  As the engine wears, it loses thrust, so a 10 year old engine might only make 95% of that number. 

Oh darn... only one hundred twelve thousand pounds of thrust left. What shall we ever do!? 

Brad

[Jim147]

Well not everyone loves a tail scraper take off. Especially if they aren't worried about being shot at.

[Fly320s]

Oh darn... only one hundred twelve thousand pounds of thrust left.

Times 2.  Still, the plane has to be able to fly on one engine, so 112,000 lbs thrust isn't that much.