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."
Misleading title (Score:2, Funny)
Yea...not about the Air Force using F-16s to attack poachers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i think they are called "pilots" actually.
Re: (Score:2)
The drivers call the airplanes "pilots?"
Now I'm really confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i think they are called "pilots" actually.
Actually, as a tongue in cheek thing, most pilots refer to other pilots as "drivers", as in "What equipment do you drive?"
(Equipment is an informal industry term for the type of aircraft. (Type is a formal industry term for the make and model of aircraft (Type is based on certificate, not marketing make & model. (I always get lost with nested brackets.))))
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots thinks it's always about the pilot (Score:2)
To the people that matter (the drivers)
So that's why it's the crew chief's name that gets painted on the side, huh...
Re: (Score:2)
Driving a plane is so much more unimpressive than flying a plane.
And flying a plane isn't nearly as impressive as flying a tank.
Re: (Score:2)
Know any A-10 pilots???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What you never watch Flocks News?
Or just watch birds where when they invade an other birds area and they are attacked by a swarm of smaller birds.
And have been for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, decades old news on the front page of slashdot
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.
Last Ten Years At McChord AFB... Not New (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, decades old news on the front page of slashdot
I ask this as someone who knows next to nothing about jet engines and nothing at all about the precise kind of airflow they require for their intake. Having said that ... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it? Once such a design is perfected it could become standard equipment and the cost would probably be negligible compared to what is already paid to design and manufactu
Re: (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 t
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:5, Interesting)
how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine
Here is pretty much the canonical list of outcomes:
Not everything on that applies to all aircraft, but in general I don't think there's a screen material in the world that would stop birds from engine ingestion (including chunks of bird sucked through a screen) while allowing adequate airflow in a high-performance, high-bypass jet engine. And then that still leaves fuselage, canopy, wing, and empennage birdstrikes.
Re: (Score:2)
If the computer shutsdown/locksup, your control surfaces freeze, and you have A LAWN DART.
According to my informants, and the material I've read about it, if the FLCC bricks, you don't have a lawn dart, you have confetti--the airplane exhibits negative static stability below Mach 1 and will pretty much depart aerodynamic flight and exceed structural limits in seconds at high subsonic speeds.
You're probably right about low-speed flight system failure, though.
That said, most of the "lawn dart" comments I he
Re:And have been for decades (Score:5, Interesting)
At the speeds of a jet fighter (and even at the speeds of a slow prop transport), an average goose will penetrate the leading edge of the wing, destroy the bleed air duct (also metal) underneath, tear up the wiring, and sometimes damage the next layer of structure.
Look at the first stage fan blades in an engine next time you're boarding an aircraft (they are ones in front you can see). Those are the biggest, toughest, blades in the engine. They basically are strong enough to pull the entire aircraft forward. When a big fat bird hits one, they bend and break.
Now, the newest/biggest commercial engines have a remarkable ability to absorb birds without a problem, but the more 'finicky' engines on fighter jets are much more susceptable, and of course if you've only got one engine... that's a big deal.
So my point in describing the impact power that a bird has is to illustrate that for a 'screen' to be strong enough to stop a bird would also completely block any airflow, and those engines are HUGE vacuum cleaners, and if that airflow slows too much, something called a 'compressor stall' happens, and that's generally bad and scares the crap out of the passengers (flames shoot out of the back end of the engine, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a screen that's only used at low speeds/aiports? It could then retract when birds aren't a safety concern.
And here is your answer. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because takeoff requires the most amount of power, it's not feasible there, and during taxi it's not really an issue.
However, you aren't -completely- off base, because some helicopters do have "screens" designed to prevent dust/rocks/etc from damaging the engine during takeoff/landing. That's kind of like what I'm sure you are picturing.
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/eaps1.html [chinook-helicopter.com]
But helicopter engines aren't really Turbofan engines, they are gas turbine engines that power a transmission, and so ca
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that ... how difficult would it be to design some kind of screen or grating to protect the intake vents of an engine so that birds could not get sucked into the engine and damage it?
Jet engines consume vast quantities of air. They are giant vacuum cleaners. [youtube.com] Placing an obstruction directly in front of and engine which consumes vast quantities of air is counter productive as it drastically reduces available power.
Take off and landing is the most dangerous phase of a flight. This is typically when engines are required to produce maximum power. So limiting air only during these phases of flight, when they are most likely to strike a bird, in of itself brings with it additional dangers.
If y
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember the intake flow to one of these engines is traveling at or near supersonic speeds. Any grate or screening device capable of blocking or diverting damaging material would have a severe negative impact on the performance and fuel efficiency of the engine.
That being said, considerable research and deve
Re: (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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...
I have a personal acquaintance who's a falconer. He's had a bird abatement contract with the USAF since I first met him 16 years ago.
it's a dupe! (Score:2)
First published on slashdot in June of 1983
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
wait till you find out how they protect Nimrods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, but the A-10 doesn't need any protection -- it's like Chuck Norris.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
A-10's have been documented to come home and land while they have gaping holes in most of the control surfaces, leaking hydraulic fluid,running on one engine, and god knows what else.
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of, and specifically built to protect the hell out of the pilot in that nearly indestructible tub.
And, it's got the scariest tank-busting gun on the planet.
All in all, for me, the coolest aircraft ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard, but never actually witnessed, doesn't that tank buster gun actually cause a very noticeable drop in airspeed too?
Re: (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 engi
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
So, why don't they mount the gun backwards? The pilot could aim through a rear facing camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm ... because the A-10 doesn't run away from trouble, it heads straight towards it and kills it. That's its job -- when it's shooting at you, it's coming straight for you.
It's built to do close air support, and crush anybody who is shooting at your people on the ground.
I suspect a rear-facing gun would significantly reduce it's 80% accuracy rate. This thing is literally built to be a tank buster.
Re: (Score:1)
More pew-pew == more zoom-zoom!
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to fire the gun for 15 seconds strait. A single burst is generally enough to wipe anything short of a main battle tank, and even that will most likely be heavily damaged or disabled.
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: (Score:2)
Worry not, I'm pretty sure this is not actually the case. IIRC, the earlier A-10s actually has a variable rate of fire, where you could choose between 2100 RPM and double of that with a flick of a switch. Though apparently they fixed it at 3900 RPM in one of the later variants. I recall that I managed to stall out my A-10 by holding down fire for long enough, though you don't really get to do anything ridiculous like fly in reverse since you have like 15 seconds worth of ammo.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's one of the most survivable aircraft I've ever heard of
Check out of some the stories and images from WWII. The amount of damage many of those planes received and yet still managed to some how seems impossible. Pilots landing bailing wire and bubble gum on their last breath so they could save their crew don't seem very strained once you start digging. ...and far too many belly gunners crushed...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I wouldn't want to detract from what those people did. I attribute that largely to sheer tenacity and balls (and in some cases, a little bit of luck probably helped). I credit the people more so than the equipment.
However, the A-10 was built from the ground up to be an aircraft with maximum survivability. The 1200lb tub that encompasses the cockpit a
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
I credit the people more so than the equipment.
Not to diminish their contribution, but you are mis-attributing a lot. The A-10 is widely considered to be far less survivable than many WWI aircraft. In fact, most all of the survivability features you attribute to the A-10 came directly from common WWII ally aircraft attributes. One of the reasons why WWII aircraft are more survivable is they didn't use extremely fragile turbines.
Historically, WWII is the apex of aircraft survivability because of our transition to jets and then again with fly by wire and hydraulics. When a new ground attack vehicle was required (aka, the A-10), they looked back in time to re-learn what made an aircraft highly survivable. And when they looked back, they almost exclusively looked at WWII aircraft. Almost all of the survivability features in the A-10 are simply re-imaginings and modernizations of WWII ideas and technology.
I can authoritatively tell you, there has yet to be an A-10 come home in anywhere near as bad of shape as many ally bombers did. Events like this, while not daily fair, were not all that uncommon. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then I will defer to your knowledge on this point.
I've merely assumed the A-10 was using a lot more modern/better techniques. If the WWII planes were that rugged, I'm truly impressed.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't your definition of survivability include actually surviving?
Of course it does. The reason pilots survived as long as they did is because of those survivability features built into ally aircraft. Those pilots will tell you as much. Its a well documented fact of history. Many axis aircraft has no such features and as such, had almost no aces by the end of the war.
Its not that our aces were invincible or unhitable...its that their aircraft allowed them to remain flying DESPITE taking devastating hits. Hits that would have simply put an end to the fight right then and t
Re: (Score:2)
WWI aircraft might have been survivable against the puny ground threats of the time
Meant to say this in the other message. You're being most disingenuous. Those "puny ground threats", are demonstratively far more lethal against the A-10 then they were against most WWII combat aircraft. This is one of the primary reasons why A-10s are not allowed into areas with heavy AAA coverage.
The A-10 (Score:2)
To paraphrase Twain: Outside of a dog, an A-10 Warthog is a grunt's best friend. Inside a dog, you have other things to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that was Groucho Marx.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you don't realize that both Falcons and Eagles are raptors, as are every other bird of pray ... considering raptor means 'bird of pray'.
Stop watching Jurassic Park and thinking it uses proper terminology.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he needs to watch Jurassic Park more intently, because Dr Grant says it within the first 20 minutes of the film, when he's describing how the velociraptor skeleton has more similarities with birds than reptiles. He says, "The word Raptor even means, bird of pray".
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Warthogs? You mean a puma, right? No such thing as warthogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*WOOOOSH*
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Red_vs_Blue [wikiquote.org]
Sarge: May I introduce, our new Light-Reconnaissance vehicle. (Rotating around the new jeep) It has 4-inch Armor Plating; M.A.G Bumper Suspension; a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen! This is the M12 LRV! I like to call it the 'Warthog'.
Simmons: Why 'Warthog,' Sir?
Sarge: Because 'M12 LRV' is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but, why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a Puma.
Sarge: What in Sam Hell is a 'Puma'?
Simmons: Uhh, you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No. Like a Puma. It's a big cat, it's like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal.
Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
Simmons: Yes sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks, and what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif: A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?!
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing new. At one point the USAAF tried to use Flying Fortresses [wikipedia.org] to protect Flying Fortresses.
Re: (Score:2)
That'll happen when pigs fly!
(ba-zing!)
Old Trick (Score:4, Informative)
old practice (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing new... (Score:3)
Nothing new, airports have been doing this and similar for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
you know what else isn't new? The posts telling us this isn't new! =P
obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
Yo dawg, I heard you like falcons, so I got you this falcon so you can use your falcons while you use your falcons!
at least do it well... (Score:1)
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
There are better ways. (Score:4, Funny)
about it (Score:2)
To prevent the falcons from becoming a problem (Score:1, Funny)
They bring in some falcon-eating gorillas. And in the winter the gorillas simply freeze to death.
I also heard.... (Score:1)
I also heard they are using weasels to keep the lawyers away.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, that doesn't work because lawyers are a top-level predator. They can only be controlled by being socialized to periodically engage in elaborate combat rituals, establishing a social structure of artificial dominance. The rest of the time they just lounge around drinking scotch and licking themselves. Really they're mostly harmless as long as you don't taunt them with political arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the F-4G Wild Weasel was retired and hasn't been flying over Spangdahlem for years.
Not new (Score:4, Interesting)
The REAL story (Score:2)
The base's CO hates toy poodles.
Unobvious sources make for bad leads... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, a story about airplanes and airports from Network World, perhaps that should of been a huge clue that it wasn't really news, novel, or particularly interesting.
And the RCAF or Canadian Air Force routinely uses them as well for their airplanes as well.
Thank you for this story, Slashdot (Score:2)
Next time, on The Falconer!
In related news... (Score:2)
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.
More imbalancing of the nature. (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Yo dawg we herd u like falcons...
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
So why was "to" capitalized in the title?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Conjunctions and prepositions are capitalized if they are 5 letters or more, usually, IIRC. For example, "under" (preposition) and "after" (conjunction) are usually capitalized in a title.
BTW, newspapers have printed things like headlines in larger print or with other obvious typesetting differences for hundreds of years [history.org]. If we didn't get rid of title case in all that time, we probably won't do it now just because of the web.
Besides, the purpose of title case has nothing to do with setting it off from the
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?
Sure, why not? [wikipedia.org]
"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933
"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be t
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
They actually got that one right; though they probably shouldve mentioned the salmonella risks...
Re: (Score:2)
From the wiki page, not that I'm disagreeing with you, but there may be a few extra factors in this particular case.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?? Do you mean the 70s? What have you been smoking?
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh, if you'd cracked open a history book, Leonardo da Vinci was designing the things back in the early 1500s.
That's the trouble with kids these days: They think everything—helicopters, astronauts, digital watches—came from the last century!
Leonardo International Rotary Wing Airport (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously you haven't been paying attention in history class. It's well known that Leonardo de Caprio's wood-and-graphite-composite corkscrew blade helicopter-Transformers were in heavy use during the early 1700s, especially in New Brunswick, East Anglia, and Muscovy. If only they had survived the onslaught of the steam-powered Brazilian Aero-Bombardment Fleet, we'd have a better historical record of those unbelievable flying machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, man. That would be an awesome steampunk novel.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe we should crowdsource production of the novel. A squadron of Slashdotters armed with a few Beowulf clusters do the trick.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you should smoke a little bit of some good green nuggets of history.
Helicopters were not invented in the last 100 years, only made practical and viable. da Vinci is a well know example of an engineer who attempted to build helicopters. And yes, they even got some of them in the air, even if not for long enough to actually matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this: "They were doing this at helicopter bases in the early 1700s."
There's a fairly big gap between those two. I hardly think DaVinci ever got to the point he was worried about bird-strike. :-P