On Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:34:27 EST, Erik Lindstr=F6m wrote:

>I=B4ll second that motion.
>
>It=B4s like shooting geese with the aid of an F-117.

Not quite.  Several experiements have been performed to test the effecti=
veness of military 
aircraft against birds.  This research began shortly after two British p=
ilots crashed due to 
birds being sucked into the jet intake duct on the aircraft, in the earl=
y 1980's.  As anyone 
who has ever cooked a goose for Christmas dinner will tell you, they are=
 extremely greasy, 
and the heat from the jets has resulted in explosions the like of which =
you have never seen.  
(or perhaps you have, depending on how good a cook you are).  Extensive =
research has been 
conducted as to the effectiveness of air to air missiles and machine gun=
s on geese and other 
birds which may represent a significant hazard to fighter pilots.  Altho=
ugh results to date 
are somewhat inconclusive, the missiles are tending toward rejection.  T=
he birds just don't 
have a strong enough radar signature for proper guidance.  Heat seekers =
were somewhat more 
promising (after adjustment to the low heat output of the geese), but ha=
d the problem that, 
when the bird relieved itself in midflight, the missile would follow the=
 excrement to the 
ground, with obvious and disastrous results.  The use of machine guns ag=
ainst geese has been 
proven effective by some Canadian fighter pilots, but this may just be d=
ue to their 
abundance.  (An secret investigation has revealed that some of the testi=
ng was conducted in 
Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC).  Electronic countermeasures seem the most =
viable option at 
this point.  Preliminary trials have resulted in some of the birds migra=
ting north in the 
winter.

-Sean

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]