Author Topic: Duck! Incoming!  (Read 473 times)

Offline Ozark

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
Duck! Incoming!
« on: December 23, 2000, 09:52:00 AM »

Imagine sitting down one day and reading an absurd story on the Internet about how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all new airplane engine designs to undergo an oddball test where chickens are shot from a cannon toward the engines.  

You do a bit of searching, but authenticating such a crazy story seems impossible.  It's apparent that this story has been floating around the Net for quite some time. You give up in frustration and decide that this tale must not be true.  

Then, you are flipping through the tv channels the next night and, amazingly, there they are shooting chickens at an airplane engine in a totally unrelated story.  Actual video to prove that such a thing is done.  

Well, life is full of such strange coincidences.  This actually happened to me.  Just what are the chances that I could come across this obscure topic two days in a row?  

Now that I've given you the background about how I got to this point, I am sure that you are wondering about the Rooster Booster.  

So here goes...  

We've all been driving down the road in our car and had a head on collision between our windshield and some unfortunate bird.  

Splat.  

But cars go at relatively slow speed when compared to that of an aircraft.  Imagine hitting a bird while going at Mach 1 (that's the speed of sound).  You'll experience more than just splat.  Chances are, if your plane is poorly designed, that severe damage could occur.  

This is no minor situation we are talking about here.  The U.S. Air Force estimates that there are between 2,500 and 3,000 bird strikes to their planes alone each year.  This produces a large amount of damage estimated to cost the service between 50 and 80 million dollars annually.  Occasionally, these incidents can also result in human death.  

Clearly, something needed to be done to reduce this damage.  

Although the exact origins of the Rooster Booster are difficult to trace, it appears that the device first became popular during the Vietnam War in the early 1970's.  The military's F-111 aircraft was equipped with terrain-following radar which allowed the plane to cruise at only several hundred feet in the air.  I think that you can see the problem here - if you're zipping along at a low altitude, you are going to smash into a large number of birds and cause a lot of damage.  

As a result of this damage during the Vietnam conflict, as well as normal non-military flights worldwide,  aircraft builders started to test their designs for resistance to bird strikes.  

Well, what better way is there to test for bird impact damage than to shoot a real bird at high speed at real aircraft?  

In reality, they could shoot any bird at the test designs.  They could use ducks or turkeys (and they do).  One would guess that swans and pink flamingos could also be used, but this would anger many.   Let's face it, when it comes to choosing a bird, the lowly chicken becomes the prime candidate.  Chickens are cheap and common, so they are ideal for the bird test.  

Now before you start screaming about cruelty to animals, I should point out that the testers use dead birds.  You know, carcasses.  The birds were on their way to someone's dinner table, but instead they took a detour to become a projectile in the rooster booster.  

Yes, these are heroic chickens.  They didn't just become someone's meal - they helped to save a life (unfortunately it was not their own).  

Apparently, the majority of these chicken cannons work off of compressed air.  Unfortunately, birds don't make tight seals with the wall of the cannon, so the bird is placed in a container called a sabot, a French term meaning "shoe".  When the gun is fired, the sabot (which is typically made from balsa wood, foam, or fiberglass) is mechanically stripped away by blades and the bird becomes a dangerous projectile.  

There are strict guidelines when it comes to using the Rooster Booster.  First, the bird must weigh either four pounds (military testing) or eight pounds (FAA testing).  Second, the bird must be thawed (fresh, not frozen as some strange stories floating the Net seem to report).  Third, the bird must be unplucked - it must be as realistic as possible.  


The chickens are loaded into their sabot and fired from the gun (actually anything big enough to shoot a chicken should be called a cannon) at a very high velocity.  Different guns are capable of shooting at different speeds, but they all seem to be around 125 to 180 mph. There are reports of higher speeds of 500 mph or more, but it's hard to ascertain whether they are realistic numbers or not.  

The chickens are shot at various components of the aircraft.  Generally, these targets tend to be windshields, fragile wing components, and engines.  

The testing of the engines is one that needs to be seen to believe.  All new engine designs must pass this "chicken ingestion test" (and other tests) in order to receive FAA approval.  When the chick hits the fan, so to speak, it disintegrates almost immediately.  Shredded feathers and body parts seem to fly in all directions.  Certainly sounds disgusting, but it's better than the turbine blade doing the same and bringing an end to many human lives.  

So the next time that you are flying in a plane while on your way to some nice tropical paradise, be sure to give thanks for that chicken that gave up his or her life for the sake of human safety.

---------------
Source: unknown


TheWobble

  • Guest
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2000, 11:22:00 AM »
I have heard many reports from smaller plane pilots of buzzards going trough wings and things like that, I also head of an airline taking off and at about 300kts a canadan goose came though the cockpit window and serverly injured the pilot (mass fractures about the face)....DAMN CANADIANS!  :)

TheWobble

  • Guest
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2000, 11:23:00 AM »
on a further not, I hit a Owl doing about 70mph in a dodge avenger and i nearly toejam my pants. he bowed the window in but did not make it through.

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2000, 12:26:00 PM »
 
Quote
Now before you start screaming about cruelty to animals, I should point out that the testers use dead birds. You know, carcasses. The birds were on their way to someone's dinner table, but instead they took a detour to become a projectile in the rooster booster.

You may want to check on this one.  I saw this film some time ago... being an F-111 grunt.  I believe they stated that the chickens were only tranquilized.  The reason being that dead chickens had significantly different strike effects than live ones.

Regardless, the chicken I saw them launch at a new canopy material put a nice neet little hole (abou 12 inches) right through it.

Another one of my favorite stories is usually ran alongside that one.  It pertains to the use of falcons (the bird not the fighter-jet) around Lakenheath airport to control the seagul population

AKDejaVu

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13891
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2000, 12:36:00 PM »
Interesting thread. Here's a couple of considerations.

Military angle. Those branches that deal with jet engines are interested in how the turbines will act if they ingest a foreign object (FOD or bird). They want to determine if the darn thing will flame out and self destruct or keep on going like the A10 does if it sucks up some nasty stuff. Too much debris (biological or not) and ANYTHING will stop including propeller piston engines. The trick is to check for that normally encountered FOD (foreign object damage) that will be happening as a matter of course in the life of the aircraft. Modern turbines are more reliable to small objects than they used to be. The latest major example of why this is an issue is the Concorde disaster. Fragments of tires took that bird down by shredding the engine which shredded more engines and structures. More modern turbofan engines are expected to ingest small birds and keep going as if nothing had happened. Remember that these engines are turning at far more than the 2,700 RPM that piston engines do.

Small aircraft considerations. Here's a real eye opener for you. Cars are required to have double thickness laminated safety glass. Virtually all small aircraft have single thickness windshields composed of lexan or polycarbonite (plastic) of one eight inch thickness. Some have up to one quarter inch thick windows. Don't think that the prop out there will shred what ever flies towards the windshield. Remarkably large birds tend to make it through it almost intact. AOPA has had several articles from pilots who survived a bird strike. The last one I read was a pilot who was struck during landing pattern operations. The bird (duck or goose, can't recall) was minus a wing and head but otherwise intact when it struck the windshield and penetrated into the cockpit and partially through the aft cabin wall. later the pilot found that the strike had collapsed a fuel line from a wing that was near the forward upper edge of the cockpit. That could have shut down the engine at a very inopportune time. The flying characteristics of the plane were changed due to the change in the airflow over the fuselage not to mention the dramatic increase in noise and wind on the pilot himself. The plane got down but suffered some major damage from the bird strike itself. The landing was not responsible for any additional damage.

Bird strikes happen. The prop will NOT protect the cockpit area. Pilots who care about safety will try to give birds a fair amount of space to make sure they miss. There are SOME birds that do seem to be suicidal in nature though. I have had some near misses with birds and try to keep an eye out for them as much as possible. Unfortunately many larger birds like buzzards and hawks like to ride the thermals near the runways in the western states and can be very hazardous to aircraft taking off and landing. It's not uncommon to pass on bird warnings to others in the pattern when this is happening.

Remember your feathered friends when flying lest one decide to "shoot you down".  

Mav
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

TheWobble

  • Guest
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2000, 01:25:00 PM »
The thing about buzzards is that they very often collapse their wings and dive straight down, if you fly something lite like a hang glider or even a mark 5 lite they can and do go straight through wings  very dangerous, I fly off a dirt road out in the country and i fire a few of those exploding shotgun shells up in the air if there are ANY birds at all around.

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2000, 09:17:00 PM »
The story you're refering to is actually what Pratt & Whitney did to their Rolls Royce designed engines for the Boeing 777. RR designed them, P&W builds 'em. They fired frozen chickens, frozen ducks and frozen seagulls into the engine. I could tell they were frozen on the video. How? Kinda hard to miss chunks of ice flying at the engine near the bird. Along with 200 pound blocks of ice, nuts, bolts, rivets, wrenches, even a 2-inch diameter socket wrench attachment. When they found out they couldn't destroy the engines easily, they blew off two of the turbine blades. The cowl retention ring held the blades inside the engine. Then they tried to drown the engine by blowing water inside it while the engine was at full power. It didn't quit.

As for the falcon bit, it's true. I've seen 'em over at PDX on occasion, and I know SEA-TAC uses them to some extent. Don't know about military bases, but some airports do use falcons to control birds. There's a wildlife refuge not far from PDX, and it's not unheard of to watch eagles nail seagulls on the tarmac.

-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond

   

[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 12-23-2000).]

Offline skernsk

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5089
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2000, 09:37:00 PM »
Saw the same showon the 777 flakbait.....very interesting.  I agree the birds in the footage I saw were frozen.  I believe the cowl ring you are refering to was made of kevlar...it showed it in super slow motion and I'm amazed that thing held.

Creamo posted a few pics of a commuter plane that hit a bird and it was shocking how much damage it did!!

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Duck! Incoming!
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2000, 12:05:00 AM »
The show I saw was on canopies.. not engines.  They mentioned freezing the birds specifically. When its not frozen, you get a better damage assesment.  That was explained in pretty graphic detail.

AKDejaVu

[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 12-24-2000).]