A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chicken Cannon Lovers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 19th 04, 08:56 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim E" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
John Lansford wrote:

The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.


I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do

with
it.


Watched the program.
Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.


Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
in a single lump.

Keith


  #12  
Old January 19th 04, 09:09 AM
Moggycat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message ...
"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...
Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.


Speaking of chickens, aircraft, and engines, this reminds me of a story a
guy I used to work with told me. Not sure if it is true (it probably
isn't), but damn funny nonetheless-

During bird ingestion tests on some jet engine, the was an insufficient
number of "thawed" baby chickens needed to simulate a flock of small birds.
So somebody took out another case from the freezer, left it out to thaw, and
meanwhile everybody went to lunch. Later on, once the chicks had thawed,
the test was ran- birds shot in the running engine, the engine suffered
severe damage and miserably failed the test. After the high speed film of
the intake view was developed, some light was shed on the matter... a stray
cat somehow found it's way into the breech of the chicken cannon. This
probably happened while it was left unattended and everyone was at lunch.
The cat must have been either celebrating its good fortune to find a free
lunch, or sleeping it off the feast when the test was started up... followed
by noise, confusion, a sharp acceleration, blast of air, and then nothing.

I have a mental picture of a spread eagled cat inches in front of a
compressor face.

debunked at http://www.messybeast.com/urbancat.htm#cannon
also a brief mention of cat version of myth at
http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.htm

PS- I am a dog person.


It's a scenario more likely to happen to a dog than a cat - e.g. to a
terrier-type dog which is bred to go down holes after prey. Cats
investigate spaces but tend not to crawl into tunnels (which is why
it's so damn hard to get them into front opening pet carriers).
Terriers not only willingly go into tunnels, they go into narrow
tunnels they can't get out of and have to be dug out of.
  #13  
Old January 19th 04, 10:28 AM
Alan Lothian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Keith Willshaw
wrote:

"Jim E" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
John Lansford wrote:

The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do

with
it.


Watched the program.
Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.


Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
in a single lump.


Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones
than by raindrops. I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any,
the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are
quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of
momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the
nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
  #14  
Old January 19th 04, 11:34 AM
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

:"Jim E" wrote in message
...
:
: Watched the program.
: Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
: Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
:
:Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
:big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
:in a single lump.

Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of
deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the
chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to
actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen
variety given the same initial impetus.

Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #15  
Old January 19th 04, 12:52 PM
Eugene Griessel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Jim E" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
John Lansford wrote:

The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact.

I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen
chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do

with
it.


Watched the program.
Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.


Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
in a single lump.


Maybe in the case of water. But I once talked to an engineer involved
in developing the canopy for the Shorts Tucano and he basically said
the same thing - frozen chicken, thawed chicken, made no difference to
the damage caused.

IIRC he said it was a 4lb chicken that was used as standard.
  #16  
Old January 19th 04, 04:09 PM
John Lansford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Herring wrote:

They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
faulty data and testing.


They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and
tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen
one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going
to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield.

Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes...

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
  #17  
Old January 19th 04, 05:19 PM
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Lansford" wrote in message

They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a
room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with
faulty data and testing.


They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and
tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen
one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going
to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield.


I watched the show. The target was a old Piper Cherokee class airframe.
The frozen chicken behaved rather like a rifle bullet, making a smallish
hole in the windscreen. The thawed chicken was more like a shotgun blast
making a significantly larger hole. The hosts speculated the defomation of
the thawed chicken made the difference against this very light weight
material (never certified to survive an impact with anything g).

I suspect that military grade windscreens (or those on commercial jet
liners) would be made of "sterner stuff" and would behave quit differently.

Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes...


Indeed!!!!!!!!!!!! GGG

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.


  #18  
Old January 19th 04, 08:04 PM
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kinda made me wonder if Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride were held to the same
standard.

If they are, you needn't worry about Plexiglas fragments in your McNuggets.
g

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

-Mark Twain


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
[rest snipped]



  #19  
Old January 19th 04, 11:16 PM
John Mianowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:53:56 -0500, Ogden Johnson III
wrote:

Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come
up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday]
evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel
[8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which
the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon.


For a link between this topic & matters naval, consider the use of
down-sized versions of "chicken cannon" technology on model warships:

http://www.rcwarships.com

JM


  #20  
Old January 19th 04, 11:44 PM
Jim E
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

:"Jim E" wrote in message
...
:
: Watched the program.
: Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact.
: Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration.
:
:Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a
:big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen
:in a single lump.

Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of
deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the
chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to
actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen
variety given the same initial impetus.

Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood.

--




Their calculation based upon observed deflection of steel plate target upon
impact (high speed camera for time of deceleration)
Time of deflection of target was identicle in both cases.
Amount of deflection however was not measured.
This could be inducing error?

Side note: This proved an excelent method of deboning a chicken.

Jim E
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
chicken thief Del Rawlins Home Built 3 April 3rd 04 03:20 AM
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! Ian Military Aviation 0 April 2nd 04 03:18 PM
WWII 20mm cannon in planes zxcv Military Aviation 13 March 10th 04 11:52 AM
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? championsleeper Military Aviation 77 March 3rd 04 05:11 AM
Development of British cannon ammuniation during WW2 Jukka O. Kauppinen Military Aviation 14 December 29th 03 10:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.