Air Force Uses Falcons To Protect Falcons 148
coondoggie writes "Birds and high-performance jet aircraft don't mix. So at a base in Germany, the Air Force is fighting birds with birds — specifically trained falcons that patrol the base and help eliminate at least some of the feathered threat to the F-16 Fighting Falcons and other aircraft."
Old Trick (Score:4, Informative)
old practice (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Falcons & falcons (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe You Mean Hobbits? :-P
Besides. It's a title, so convention is to capitalize all except the articles (like 'the'). Have you noticed that all Slashdot headings look like that?
Montreal Airport also does that (Score:2, Informative)
The montreal airport also does that, nothing new here. :http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0325_030325_falconry.html
see
Re:old practice (Score:5, Informative)
According to a NASA review of the subject, falconry for bird control at airports dates back to the 1940s.
I must say this article amused me; I mean, /. regularly gives us "news" from two or three years ago... but seventy?
Re:Falcons & falcons (Score:1, Informative)
You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?
Re:And have been for decades (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, this is standard procedure in a lot of civil airports. I saw it in Jose Newbery city airport in Buenos Aires.
Re:Misleading title (Score:2, Informative)
i think they are called "pilots" actually.
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Informative)
That's my understanding.
According to Wiki [wikipedia.org]:
When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines ... that's an impressive gun.
Re:And have been for decades (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is split between an aerodynamic issue and a much simpler physics issue.
The physics issue is that at landing the F-16 is going somewhere between 120-170 knots (aprox. 120-200 MPH), and it would take an awfull thick grate to keep birds out of the intakes at those speeds. The delta-v (difference in speed... ugg, my physics teacher would kill me for that) is so large that even a lightweight bird is going to go through anything you could describe as a screen.
The aerodynamic issue is that if you put that much blockage right in front of the engine intake you are going to create a lot of drag (going into your engine), and are going to play hell with the aeordynamic flow right at the intake meaning more air is going to bypass the intake (a really bad thing for jet engines).
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
They halved the rate of fire of the General Electric GAU-8 (around which the A-10 is designed) in order to mitigate this problem. It turns out that you don't really need over 3,000 rounds per minute to saw tanks in half with a mix of lead and DPU.
Re:Falcons & falcons (Score:1, Informative)
Nothing to see here (Score:2, Informative)
Standard passenger airports in the UK have used birds of prey for this purpose for decades...
I'm sure the same is probably true for airports all over the world.
Re:And have been for decades (Score:5, Informative)
(I'm a former F-16 A/B/C/D engine weenie/crew chief.)
Maintenance issue:
Screen must be opened and closed to inspect intake and fan stage during preflight. thruflight, and postflight inspections.
Hardware and latches would be subject to wear, screen subject to fatigue cracking, and either could dump parts downstream into the engine resulting in engine damage and loss of aircraft. That's why screens used for ground runs are inspected before and after use, and their installation and removal entered in the aircraft maintenance documentation.
Weight issue:
Every pound matters in terms of performance and fuel mileage. When you hang parts on a fighter airframe, they affect Weight and Balance calculations, place stress on their attach points, and can create host of problems anticipated or otherwise.
While the concept isn't suitable to jets, helicopters are suitable for mechanical intake Foreign Object Damage mitigation systems such as EAPS:
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/eaps1.html [chinook-helicopter.com]
Re:And have been for decades (Score:3, Informative)
"You have to remember the intake flow to one of these engines is traveling at or near supersonic speeds."
The shape of the F-16 intake decelerates supersonic intake air to subsonic so it won't destroy the engine.
Fighter intakes
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk133_F4F_phantom/images/Mvc-0049.jpg [aircraftre...center.com]
and those on the now-defunct Concorde
http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html [concordesst.com]
often used variable ramps to handle the problem. The F-16 does it without moving parts, quite an accomplishment at the time.
Re: The Lawn Dart (Score:1, Informative)
It's called a Lawn Dart because it is Fly-by-Wire; there are no direct control links to the cockpit. If the computer shutsdown/locksup, your control surfaces freeze, and you have A LAWN DART. I have personally witnessed a T-38 trainer become a lawn-dart, and that is a two-engine plane. Sheppard, 2008.