JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) (03/13/91)
From: "Larry W. Jewell" <JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I recently noticed a posting (and you can't make me say
where) that the U.K. had a "chicken cannon" for testing
airplanes in regards to "bird-proofing". The concept is just
bizarre enough to have a basis in reality. So...
1. When was it used,
2. is it still in use,
3. does anyone have a good description/specs for the thing,
4. how did the RSPCA react?
5. Did/does the U.S. have anything like it.
6. Have I finally slipped a cog?
[mod.note: They've been around for a long time. Their primary use,
I believe, is to throw chickens at velocities typical of the aircraft's
airspeed (or perhaps just takeoff/landing speed ?) to learn how well it
deals with bird strikes in flight. I know the USA has them, I'd presume
other aircraft manufacturing countries do, as well... else there'd be
a Chicken Gap! 8-) - Bill ]
========================================================================
"I thought you had this helicopter blessed this morning!" from "Air
America" a documentary released in 1990.
Larry W. Jewell JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDUdwm@sei.cmu.edu (David McKeehan) (03/14/91)
From: dwm@sei.cmu.edu (David McKeehan) In article <1991Mar13.001928.5935@cbnews.att.com> JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes: > > I recently noticed a posting (and you can't make me say >where) that the U.K. had a "chicken cannon" for testing >airplanes in regards to "bird-proofing". There is such a thing, and you are right. There are two relevant Military Specifications, one for a Mil-Std chicken, and the other specifying the gun and how it is used. Whenever you build/modify an aircraft canopy, or equipment inside the canopy in direct line with the pilot's head (Head Up Displays are the most common equipment covered), then you are require to perform bird strike tests to insure that the material is capable of being hit by a bird in flight and (1) not breaking, or (2), if the bird is too big, then breaking up in a manner to minimize injury. Essentially, you reserve time at one of several testing facilities and they shoot chickens at your canopy or HUD. (I used to build HUDs for a living.) A few years back, a group was looking at revising the standard, since several aircraft (the B-1B was the most prominent) had hit flocks of larger birds than covered by the standard and been downed as a result (usually when they went through the engine, which also has to pass bird strike tests). I remember once, down at Edwards AFB when we were testing a low level, night attack version of an A-10 which never made it into production, we ran into a flock of Owls one night. Luckily, they hit the wings and vertical stabalizers, not the canopy or engines. You should have seen the size of the dents! We had to replace the top of one vertical stabalizer, it was so badly mangled!
urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi (Urban Fredriksson) (03/15/91)
From: urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi (Urban Fredriksson) JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes: >From: "Larry W. Jewell" <JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU> > I recently noticed a posting (and you can't make me say >where) that the U.K. had a "chicken cannon" for testing >airplanes in regards to "bird-proofing". > 3. does anyone have a good description/specs for the thing, From what I've read about them, they are airguns, with a large tank of compressed air. I guess they are transportable... > 4. how did the RSPCA react? ...for when British Rail were concerned about the windshields on their new high-speed trains, they borrowed one from British Aerospace. "OK, now, were do we get birds to test it with?" "We usually go to the grocer's and buy some large chickens." Two days later: "Eh, do you have any good tips on reinforcing windshields?" "What, did you have any problems?" "Well... it broke the windshield, went through the wall behind the engineer and generally destroyed things in the engine compartment!" "???... hmmm... did you thaw it?" "Oh... No." | Urban Fredriksson | I do NOT speak |"The best way to get rid of an | | Stockholm, Sweden | for my employer! | enemy is to make him a friend."| | Reply to: urban@kista.relay.nokia.fi | I'm off the net in April - May |
turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Staff- Bob S Turner) (03/19/91)
From: turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Staff- Bob S Turner) In article <1991Mar13.001928.5935@cbnews.att.com> JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes: >I recently noticed a posting (and you can't make me say >where) that the U.K. had a "chicken cannon" for testing > Yes, we have one here at UD. The Impact Physics Dept. of the Research Institute uses it for birdstrike testing. The favorite Campus Legend (local version of Urban Legend :-) is in the early 70's during canopy birdstrike testing the research personnel used live birds. This gave them a good characterization of the strike. Using that info they developed a slug, also called a bird. I'm not sure what material its made of, but it is rather moist and spongy. They have to referigerate them to keep them fresh. Oh, they also come in a selection of sizes, all shaped like a cylinder. Anyways, when they were using live birds it apparently was real intresting to have classes in the Engineering or Music buildings. The gun is still used for birdstrike as well as other impact testing. -- ==================================================================== Bob Turner Network Manager, School of Engineering 513-229-3171 turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu Univ. of Dayton, Engineering Computing Center-KL211, Dayton OH 45469
frankl@Sun.COM (03/20/91)
From: ide!frankl@Sun.COM "Larry W. Jewell" <JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU> writes: > I recently noticed a posting (and you can't make me say >where) that the U.K. had a "chicken cannon" for testing >airplanes in regards to "bird-proofing". The concept is just >bizarre enough to have a basis in reality. So... When I was an engineer at Lockheed (Burbank + Rye Canyon), I got to see the chicken cannon. > 1. When was it used, Quite a few years, but I don't know when they started. > 2. is it still in use, If Lockheed is still making planes in Burbank (doubtful) > 3. does anyone have a good description/specs for the thing, Sorry, no specs. > 4. how did the RSPCA react? It does not fire live birds. > 5. Did/does the U.S. have anything like it. Lockheed does, at Rye Canyon. > 6. Have I finally slipped a cog? Quite possibly. One story that was told to me was that the L-1011 was chicken tested and the chicken not only broke the windshield but went rocketing through the body of the plane. On investigation, it turned out the chicken had been bought at a local supermarket and was frozen solid (ie the engineer forgot to defrost it.) Adam Frankl ex-systems engineer, ATF
jbrod@radarnet.hac.com (Jeff Brodsky) (03/21/91)
From: jbrod@radarnet.hac.com (Jeff Brodsky) The "chicken cannon" story is true. A very close friend of mine works for McDonnell Douglas, in flight test. They use a frozen chicken, about 2 pounds. Apparently this has the typical weight/density of birds you might find airborne. If I remember correctly, the chicken is accellerated to about 200 miles per hour. The "cannon" is a mechanically operated thing, and is fired at ALL aircraft designs, including commercial aircraft. The FAA requires a windscreen test, and this is one component. Jeff --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Brodsky (714) 732-2446 Hughes Aircraft Co., Ground Systems Group
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (03/27/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) In article <1991Mar21.011112.5929@cbnews.att.com> jbrod@radarnet.hac.com (Jeff Brodsky) writes: >The "chicken cannon" story is true. A very close friend of mine works >for McDonnell Douglas, in flight test. Apparently the story about some engineer forgetting to unfreeze the chicken is pretty true. I was talking with a friend who deals a lot with Lockheed, and he remembers the frozen chicken story with the L-1011. He also told me of another time when Rolls-Royce was testing the Olympus engines for the Concorde and ran a chicken test. The engines are built in pods of two, and, you guessed it, the engineer forgot to defrost the chicken. One engine engulfed the six pound frozen chicken at about 200 mph and quickly proceeded to disintegrate, taking the second the engine with it. $10 Million in 1960s dollars violently scattered itself about the test range until there was no more. [ Enough stories about fowl play; unless someone has references. :-) --CDR] -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp