Jump to content

Talk:Bird strike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.10.88.122 (talk) at 10:44, 17 January 2009 (→‎"Most damaging" birds: to avoid misunderstanding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
WikiProject iconBirds B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconBird strike is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Regarding this accident - "The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960 when an Eastern Air Lines Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston flew through a flock of European starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for turbine-powered engines were developed by the FAA." the birds responsible are always reported as European Starlings or just starlings. However while there were a few Starlings found in the wreckage the great majority of the birds found were in fact Blackbirds. Blackbirds are related to Starlings but are a little larger.

"The energy of the impact increases with the cube of the speed difference." I'm not a physicist (though I am a pilot) -- doesn't the impact energy actually increase with the *square* of the relative speed, not cube? Since kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2? 12.208.12.201 03:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, this was probably my mistake when I expanded the article. I have changed the text from cube to square. Thanks for the info -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard another related urban legend: That the spirals painted on the spinners of jet engines are supposed to look like eyes of hawks, or something, and thereby scare off birds. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0233a.shtml simply says they're there to let ground crew know that the engines are turning. Any input? Jeh 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that deer picture...

you know, you should probably make a link using the caption of the deer in that plane's landing gear because the "disturbing image warning doesn't really help by then, because most people, reading form top to bottom, would have already seen it. Ick.

image replacement

I have removed an image (there are alot animal impact image in the article) and inserted an image of an engine damage after a bird strike evenet.--195.128.38.35 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revert

Ugh. I knew that this would happen. In the text as it existed, there was a lot of loose text and redundant information. I chopped it. It got reverted. Here we go.

Most bird strikes happen close to the ground, where the majority of birds are found (in bird airspace). Hence bird strikes happen most often during take off or landing, or during low altitude flight.
Seems to be totally obvious and pointless to specifically mention. Gee whiz, there are more birds at 30ft than at 3000ft?
The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle, although with jet engine aircraft the animal is frequently sucked into the [or an] engine, causing damage to the fans or the housing, or airflow ducts.
Very wordy "of the vehicle" is obviously redundant. Find a shorter way of mentioning jet engines.
The weight of the vehicle can usually be ignored since it is usually much larger than the weight of the animal.
Um, yes. And? This isn't an article about kinematics. This sentence seems really out of place.
although it will result in major injuries or death to the bird.
O RLY?? Be serious. Why should this be in the article?
High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may
How is this better than "High speed impacts, however, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage"? High speeds produce "considerable energy"? What does that even mean? Considerable kinetic energy? Are you trying to say that going faster causes greater damage? Come on, that's just obvious. We're trying to inform, not define at some minute level.

Is this reversion really justified? How so? Stevage 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windfarms

The doesn't feature any information about birds getting struck by wind turbines, also referred to as bird strike. This issue has been used in some cases by governments as a reason to oppose wind farms, a hot issue where I'm from. PeterPartyOn 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 link removed - Amatuear footage - Watermark in footage does not correlate with clip information or uploader profile, no clear indication uploader has right to the footage concerned or is linked to the production entity responsible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical units seriously messed up

The physical units used in this article in the following sentence make very little sense:

"The force imparted onto the aircraft at collision is defined by the equation F = (1/2)mass X velocity squared, where F equals kinetic energy in foot pounds per square inch."

  1. You can't "impart" force onto an aircraft, you can apply it for a specific time which is really imparting an impulse.
  2. The equation F=(1/2)mv2 is for kinetic energy not force (see Kinetic energy). So F should be E or Ek.
  3. The "in foot pounds per square inch" is:
    1. Irrelevent in this context, no other units are mentioned.
    2. Not related to kinetic energy, or even force. Energy is mass x length2 x time-2. Force is mass x length x time-2. "foot pounds per square inch" is length-1 x mass (if pounds is taken as mass) or length-1 x mass x length x time-2 = mass x time-2 (if pounds is taken as weight/force).

I'm going to change this sentence to the following:

"The energy that must be dissipated in the collision is approximately the relative kinetic energy (Ek) of the bird, defined by the equation Ek = (1/2)mass X velocity2"

--James Hogan 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bird Deflectors

It seems like it would be easy enough to make an aerodynamic cone shaped bird deflector grate (cow catcher) that fits on the front of the engine. A sufficiently acute cone would deflect most of the force, as well as the carcass, sideways. Aerodynamic shaped slats would have minimal impact on airflow. Whitis (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd be starving the engine of air that the compressor needs, I assume. Tempshill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still be useful in this article to address why jet engines do not have grates or "cow catchers" - if anyone can find a good authority to cite, then this discussion would improve this article quite a bit. Tempshill (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most damaging" birds

The Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification Laboratory has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds, followed by Canada geese and white pelicans, all very large birds.

I fact-tagged the word "damaging" just now because I think this means that "Turkey vultures cause the most bird strikes". The way it's currently phrased, I'm reading it as "A turkey vulture will cause the most damage to a plane that it happens to strike." Tempshill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference needed and referenced the sentence. The reference says almost exactly what the wiki article says (Wiki: "... has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds". Reference: "...the most damaging birds are turkey vultures"). If you are unsure what that means, you might consider the [clarification needed] tag, but a reference needed doesn't fit here. 212.10.88.122 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the introductory paragraph of the article, the word 'accidents', links to a page that talks about what an accident is in general. Do we really need that link? I think the link is irrelevant, and most people know what an 'accident' is without having to check the link out. I think the link should be removed. 208.120.218.206 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bird_strike&oldid=264645720"