Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12041302)

I'd rather put ice, fresh lime juice, Cointreau, and some good tequila in the blended. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041300)

We are not talking about low mass bullets flying at supersonic speed, the soft bullet would be deformed by blasting through the sound barrier and would no longer be small enough to penetrate. We are talking about medium mass object flying at subsonic speeds and constrained enough that it will not easily deform. For example on mythbusters they found no difference in shooting a frozen or thawed chicken through a windshield of an airplane. The damage is done by the impact not a hard object, the blender is not an equal comparison. That is a much lower kinectic energy situation with hardend blades, still the likely result is that the blades get bent from the engine, and dulled from the bones. The aircraft engine uses softer but much stronger blades and the damage is not caused by contact with hard objects but a sudden impact. Yes the motor will nick and cut the blades more than the chicken, but that is minor damage the engine will run through. It is total breakage and missing blades that will do the jet engine in, not cuts and nicks.

Originally Posted by Rob2160 (Post 12041339)

Mythbusters later revised their findings and determined frozen chickens are more damaging

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2004/02/m...icken_gun.html

http://mythbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Chicken_Gun_Myth

I personally doubt a jet engine could survive ingesting a 2-3 Kilogram drone with 4 hard metal engines and a 500 gram battery with only nicks and cuts on the blades but lets hope we never find out.

Originally Posted by smeckert (Post 12041024)

wonder if i can get a couple million federal dollars to try and educate the ducks and geese on flight safety?

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12040786)

In all reality, if you lived in Trumbull you'd probably hire "the help" to do the shooting for you, it's just easier that way. To many country club outings to go instead of getting the hands dirty with a gun! :) :)

Originally Posted by ira d (Post 12041016)

I can tell you that in many areas of the country including the pro gun states that firing a gun without a valid cause can wind you up in jail in fact you can't even fire a warning shot.
Unless you are at a legal gun range the only reason accepted for firing a gun is self defense and firing at mode airplanes wont qualify as self defense. Also legally hunting
in a area that is legal to hunt in would be about the only other reason you can fire a gun.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12041456)

Not really. My neighbor would go deer hunting at night regularly. And he was always in by the time the cops showed up. Trumbull spends most of its money on the Trumbull head weanies than on needed services.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12041457)

See above comment.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041428)

An f-14 Tomcat is not an airliner engine, and not a fan jet. Airliners are rated to injest 5 KG birds and continue running. The fan helps as it tends to send the bird parts out away from the compressor inlet. Yes a missing blade can cause a large amount of damage, but it usually takes something larger than that. That is not saying it would never happen, only unlikely.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041428)

An f-14 Tomcat is not an airliner engine, and not a fan jet. Airliners are rated to injest 5 KG birds and continue running. The fan helps as it tends to send the bird parts out away from the compressor inlet. Yes a missing blade can cause a large amount of damage, but it usually takes something larger than that. That is not saying it would never happen, only unlikely.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041376)

Per the Mythbusters conclusion.

Result of myth: when a chicken is flying that fast, it don't matter what temperature it is.


They did find that a frozen chicken did more damage, but the result for the higher speeds that a jetliner flies at made little difference. The high kinetic energy overwhelms any difference the hardness makes. The motors on such a small sUAV just don't weigh that much. The batteries would do more damage. But its the total combined weight that will determine the actual damage.

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12041586)

A jet engine is just that, a jet engine. They have blades in the front, which narrow down to the compressor stage. There is where the problem occurs. The blades already fractured by a foreign object other than AIR, chicken or what not , will not go into the compression state. The fractured blades with the other foreign object then enter the compression stage, when that takes place, the engine will self disstruct, implode within itself creating an engine failure. Jet fighter, bomber, Airliner, jets engines operate on the same principal, air in air out. Any object sucked into those fan blades with create havoc in that engine.

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12041402)

Also, Mythbusters was using the windshield made for a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, not the pressure and impact rated material used in modern jetliners. As far as what will and won't damage an engine, I have seen a standard Bic pen destroy an F-14 Tomcat engine while running at ground idle. It takes little very little to unbalance an engine and an unbalanced engine will self destruct very quickly. If you need an example, look back to the Quantas Airbus plane that had an engine explode in flight and how much damage it caused and how hard it was for the crew, including extra high hour check pilots, to get it on the plane back on the ground safely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LYcpVtaDD0

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12041586)

A jet engine is just that, a jet engine. They have blades in the front, which narrow down to the compressor stage. There is where the problem occurs. The blades already fractured by a foreign object other than AIR, chicken or what not , will not go into the compression state. The fractured blades with the other foreign object then enter the compression stage, when that takes place, the engine will self disstruct, implode within itself creating an engine failure. Jet fighter, bomber, Airliner, jets engines operate on the same principal, air in air out. Any object sucked into those fan blades with create havoc in that engine.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041726)

Not news to me. These engines are tested with birds that are much larger than a 5 pound sUAV and they keep going.

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12041578)

OK, This Clown that landed on the White House Lawn, is getting what he deserves. Wish it were more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

Originally Posted by Rob2160 (Post 12041759)

Tell that to Sullenberger..

It sounds good in theory and I wish it were true in all cases but facts prove otherwise - foreign object ingestion can and does cause engine failures.

The FAA certification standard for a large bird strike (above 1.85Kg - 4.07lbs) in a turbine engine does not require the engine to continue producing power.

It only requires the damage to be contained within the engine and not result in further damage to the aircraft / airframe.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../ac33.76-1.pdf

Even forgetting about the engines, impact damage anywhere on the airframe can also result in a crash e.g. the Concorde - which was brought down by a 10lb piece of rubber hitting the wing.

Originally Posted by Rob2160 (Post 12041669)

Like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jZvlFmqQU I have personally experienced four bird strikes while flying jet aircraft, 1. did no damage to a wing leading edge, only blood stains, 2, No damage to a windscreen, it happened at low speed on landing, 3 and 4 went into engines causing minor damage to the compressor blades which needed replacing.

We also had an incident where the engine ingested several medium size pieces of iron ore gravel - though smaller than the birds, they did far more damage and the engine had to be replaced.

Originally Posted by Rob2160 (Post 12041665)

I guess it also depends on the size of UAV we are talking about. - a small Phantom or Blade 350QX will do less damage than a larger machine. I have a UAV almost 1 meter across that weighs 4.5 Kilograms (10lbs) - most of the construction is metal, the motors are 150 grams each and it carries a 1 kilogram battery.

That would do very nasty things to a jet engine or cockpit windscreen impacting at 300 Kts.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12041819)

The topic is sUAV (which weight less than 5 pounds), such as bought at the store and flown by idiots who don't know and/or don't care about regulations.