The fighters were approaching from behind dumping fuel while VERY closely overflying it to soak it in fuel. What I don't get from the video is how the fighter made contact with what appears to be only the propeller and not contact any other part of the drone and what part of the fighter made contact with it? Other thought is that the fuel dump was heavy and dense enough to damage the prop. Your all guesses are probably as good or better than mine.
GuzziJohn
Not necessarily directed at "you" GuzziJohn, but to others as well. I just used your quote to separate from a comment I make that follows this one.
It would be my somewhat educated WAG that the fuel was dumped to create a "flooding" condition to the Reapers turboprop engine.
The engine requires a fuel air mix, just like a internal combustion engine, or even for a gas turbine or jet engine & if that mix is forced to take on too much air, or too much fuel it overwhelms the engine(s) ability to correctly mix the air/fuel and makes the engine(s) shut off.
When the fuel was dumped and got sucked into the air intake for the engine it simply shut the engine down & thus the prop shut down.
Not so sure about any possible highjinks of "hitting the prop" as the so called, "News" says. I doubt it.
It seems that using such a tactic like fuel dumping to overwhelm the ACs ability to keep its' engine(s) running to take down a aircraft would be a good one if one wanted to make sure that the AC was undamaged, or lightly damaged for recovery by whoever gets there to it first.
Even if it had been an on-board piloted AC, the effect of the fuel dumping & engine(s) shutting down would make the pilot whether on board or not aboard the AC likely have to do some emergency measures to recover , IF recovery was possible.
I don''t know much about the drones capability to glide if there is some sort of engine failure, but I think that many AC can be put on a glide path to recover after a engine shutdown IF the engine might be restarted.
Even if the engine(s) cannot be re-started, even helos can be "auto rotated" if there is engine failure(s) and if done right usually a successful but "iffy' landing can be made. ( <this I know for a fact as I have participated in training & actually doing auto-rotation landings on more than one occasion.
)
I don't have pilot training but I do/did have accredited AC Airframe & Powerplant schooling, as well as a lot of schooling,training & flying in CH46 helos while I was in the Corps., so I know a bit more about how they work, instead of flying them. I am pretty sure though that many AC can be glided into landing and don't just drop like a rock if there is an engine failure.
Anyway, The fuel dumping in this case was , IMO, likely a tactic/method of taking down the drone without firing on it or even making any direct contact with it by the Ruskies, and whether or not it was done to aid in recovery by any party, or just to keep the "engagement" to a minimum of a demonstration of aggression by either party, I do not know.
I liken it to "Use of Force" levels & whether or not one has to move up the levels depending on the threat perceived. If folks here understand what I am talking about. ( I think may would anyway.)
OK, I will stop there with this conjecture, & only say that the cost of the fuel to accomplish the mission of downing a perceived threat likely has less cost both in $$$ and in aggravating the situation by shooting a cannon, MG, or a missile, much like the use of pepper spray instead of shooting someone perceived as an attacker might be considered a lesser "use of force".
