Force dragging stuff towards intakes.

[technicalfool]

Just a thought. It's generally not healthy to be around turbine intakes when they're spinning up, and getting debris pulled in isn't good for the aircraft or its occupants either.

Maybe add in a chance of the intake or downstream engines exploding if small debris gets sucked in? This could be incorporated into any kind of destruction of an intake during a mishap, perhaps. Also it'd be lovely if the game dropped available intake air by some percentage based on how much debris is nearby and in "front" of the intake, to simulate blocking, if a large piece ends up not exploding and stuck to the aircraft by the intake force.

[Sirrobert]

There will be no random events. So a chance of something happening is out of the question

[JumpsterG]

Not so happy after watching the video used for demonstration.

I agree with Sirrobert that there shouldn't be a random element to this but the idea of intakes sucking in objects in front of them has potential for new kinds of failure (fun). Plus, the blocking of intakes by other parts would be a realistic engineering concern.

[Themohawkninja]

There will be no random events. So a chance of something happening is out of the question

Eh, the flameout on the engines is pseudo-random (what causes it is predictable, but multiple jets won't flame out simultaneously), so this isn't out of the question.

This isn't a bad idea. I mean, it serves no real practical purpose (except for just one more thing to murder Kerbals with), but I don't see why not.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Themohawkninja

[TwoHedWlf]

Not so happy after watching the video used for demonstration.

That incident the guy was fine. Well, as fine as you can be with a bunch of bruises, doing something stupid and probably..Uhhh...Soiling yourself in front of all your coworkers.

If I remember right he got stuck on a pitot tube or something in the intake and his helmet was sucked off, fodded and killed the engine. There's longer versions that show him crawling back out.

[Seret]

Can't see the video here, but if it's the famous one of the guy getting sucked into an A-7 intake on the deck of a carrier he did survive.

The devs have said in the past that they're not keen on the idea of random breakdowns or mishaps, so FODed engines is pretty unlikely to happen.

[JumpsterG]

Good to know for this incident, but it's still dangerously close to being a snuff film, IMO.

On topic, I'd say this feature as a new failure type isn't high priority, but intake blockage (by other parts on the same ship) could change the way our aircraft are designed in a similar way to how we currently avoid blocking our engines. This could limit intake spam and part-clipping intakes. (I realize there are aesthetic arguments to be made for part-clipping, though, so there's some discussion to be had.) Maybe this needs a separate suggestion thread? I bet it's already been suggested as a part of improved aerodynamics...

[technicalfool]

Good to know for this incident, but it's still dangerously close to being a snuff film, IMO.

Yeah, there is (much, much) worse imagery out there of the aftermath of fleshy human meeting hard spinny turbine blades. I picked the one where the guy gets out again afterwards.

And it's not so much a random failure, as a fairly predictable set of failures caused by stuff getting too close to the intakes. Just an idea.

[Seret]

Yeah, there is (much, much) worse imagery out there of the aftermath of fleshy human meeting hard spinny turbine blades.

Yeah, we used to get made to watch them when I was in the air force. Grim viewing, but also the source of much harshlols.

[Sirrobert]

Eh, the flameout on the engines is pseudo-random (what causes it is predictable, but multiple jets won't flame out simultaneously), so this isn't out of the question.

This isn't a bad idea. I mean, it serves no real practical purpose (except for just one more thing to murder Kerbals with), but I don't see why not.

Flameout is completly predictable. If you do the exact same thing multiple time, you will get the exact same result

[Themohawkninja]

Flameout is completly predictable. If you do the exact same thing multiple time, you will get the exact same result

Not really. I'm pretty sure I've had the left engine go first at times, and other times the right engine goes first. It may not be "random" in the sense of an RNG, but the predictability isn't applicable when you want to get both engines to flame out at exactly the same time to avoid spinning.

[Capt Snuggler]

ether way it wouldn't be random. objects/kerbals would be sucked up and stick to the intakes, causing a flame out or reduced thrust.

maybe have an invisible cone in front of intakes. the more objects intersect with the invisible cone, the more thrust is lost. loose objects intersecting with the cone also get pulled towards the intake (when engines are running).