Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Uses Falcons To Protect Falcons

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."

16 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Old Trick by rotide · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nothing new. Even at JFK they tested this nearly a decade ago: http://www.cartome.org/jfk-strike.htm JFK and other airports may still be using trained Birds of Prey to scare off feed species.

  2. old practice by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Informative

    This practice is at least 30 yrs old. USAF bases in England were doing this in the mid 70's. If I could be bothered to look, there are probably references much earlier than that.

    1. Re:old practice by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  3. Re:Falcons & falcons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please Stop That Stupid Habbit Of Writing Everything In Capitals...

    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?

  4. Montreal Airport also does that by crazyfrenchmen · · Score: 2, Informative

    The montreal airport also does that, nothing new here.
    see :http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0325_030325_falconry.html

    --
    "Failure is not an option, it come bundled with the software"
  5. Re:Falcons & falcons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?

  6. Re:And have been for decades by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Re:Misleading title by Briden · · Score: 2, Informative

    i think they are called "pilots" actually.

  8. Re:What's next? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have heard, but never actually witnessed, doesn't that tank buster gun actually cause a very noticeable drop in airspeed too?

    That's my understanding.

    According to Wiki:

    The recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN), which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each). While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour.

    When your gun's recoil is more than the force of one of your engines ... that's an impressive gun.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Re:And have been for decades by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

  10. Re:What's next? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:Falcons & falcons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because it's a preposition and not an article?

  12. Nothing to see here by carvell · · 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.

  13. Re:And have been for decades by couchslug · · Score: 4, 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

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. Re:And have been for decades by couchslug · · Score: 2, 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

    and those on the now-defunct Concorde

    http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

    often used variable ramps to handle the problem. The F-16 does it without moving parts, quite an accomplishment at the time.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  15. Re: The Lawn Dart by Anonymous Coward · · 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.