When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney, all flight
engines had anti-icing features built into the blades (some of the
compressor blades were hollow and hot air circulated through them). This
solved the engine icing problem. The icing problem is with the aircraft
body itself.

We would NEVER put any "thing" in front of the engine for fear of
ingesting the "thing" and destroying the engine. A structure like a
screen and its supports has the potential for completely destroying any
jet engine.

Bird strikes are a very common event, particularly around airports.
Engines are designed to absorb bird strikes and tested against bird
strikes. At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

I do not recall any requirement for tests with multiple chickens.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the chicken
was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us to scare
the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it has to
be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a problem.
Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be too. Not to
mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through the engine could
block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

They were also worried about icing and deicing. You'd have to almost put
the deicer directly into the engine itself and that can't be a good
thing. Also, when you look at the forces involved in hitting a large
goose at take off speeds or higher, you run out of materials that make
any sense very quickly.