Chicken Cannon Lovers

In article , macbenahATkdsiDOTnet says...

In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait:

Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
heeped upon that imbecility you note.

It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
Concerning It.

Well, right, but, but.......

Every guy who shot an owl, eagle, whatever would be there saying "But Ossifer,
'twas but road kill.... found these feathers floating in the garden, &c
&c..... never laid a hand on the poor creature

Cheers,
dba

In ,
Clark stillnospam@me radiated into the WorldWideWait:
Peter Skelton wrote in
:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...

With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
me.

It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV

There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window saleman...

In news:1UpPb.199229$JQ1.132738@pd7tw1no,
Brian Allardice radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
In article ,
macbenahATkdsiDOTnet says...
In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the
WorldWideWait:

Nor the USF&WS prohibition against said "indigenous" peoples even
giving gifts that include such feathers to non-Indians (to use the
polically incorrect term), which IMHO is just further stupidity
heeped upon that imbecility you note.

It's a Murphy's Law, but I can't recall which: No Subject, Topic or
Idea is Too Trivial, Stupid or Inconsequential to Have a Law Passed
Concerning It.

Well, right, but, but.......
Every guy who shot an owl, eagle, whatever would be there saying
"But Ossifer, 'twas but road kill.... found these feathers
floating in the garden, &c &c..... never laid a hand on the poor
creature

Ah, then you favor convicting people on the basis that they "might
possibly" have shot a bird?
Personally, I want the F&G Naz^H^H^H Wardens to have to PROVE the
individual deliberately caused the bird's demise.
There happens to be a medium-sized flock of iggles nesting within a
couple miles of my house. Not that I would EVER gather any cast-off
feathers, no. Nope. Huh-uh. Not me.

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in message
...
In ,
Clark stillnospam@me radiated into the WorldWideWait:
Peter Skelton wrote in
:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of
perpetual income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...

With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
me.

It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV

There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window saleman...

Hey, don't forget "blacktop sealing gypsy"! You know, the scam artists who
travel around the country taking advantage of little old ladies (and some
younger folks who ought to know better) by overcharging them to apply a thin
coat of sealer to their driveways? Sounds like a job well suited to the
ethically-challenged...

Brooks

In t,
Kevin Brooks radiated into the WorldWideWait:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in message
...
In ,
Clark stillnospam@me radiated into the WorldWideWait:
Peter Skelton wrote in
:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:44 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:
"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source
of perpetual income

Balderdash.

See what I mean? A simple tongue-in-cheek remark and the
ambulance chasing lobby is out in arms...

With all respect sir, his snipped crack that they'd simply find
something else to do was reasonably witty and got a DOH out of
me.

It sounds good, but in practice, the average lawyer isn't
intelligent enough to "find something else." YMMV

There are ekshully many job openings available for them. Used car
salesman, Cable Service telemarketer, Roofing/Siding/Window
saleman...

Hey, don't forget "blacktop sealing gypsy"! You know, the scam
artists who travel around the country taking advantage of little
old ladies (and some younger folks who ought to know better) by
overcharging them to apply a thin coat of sealer to their
driveways?

No openings - the field is already over-filled with former
politicians.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

John Lansford wrote:

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

They also have at least one at Lockheed Fort Worth (for testing
aircraft canopies).

Hell, I've built them. Its not that hard to make a pneumatic cannon.
There's
even a sport for them (google search "pumpkin chucking")

Jim E wrote:

"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.

Heh... maybe they need to design for pigeon strikes and not chickens.
Really... when
was the last time you saw a chicken in flight higher than 20 feet off the
ground, or
hanging around an airport? Pigeons and gulls on the other hand, or ducks...
they get up there
a bit more. But are much smaller birds. Unless the goal is to design for
collisions with canada
geese (our secret weapons).

Alan Lothian wrote:

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.

You've never weighed a raindrop vs a hailstone have you?

Eugene Griessel wrote:

"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.

How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I can't
think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.

Kristan,

How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.

Suggest you see:

http://www.birdstrike.org/
http://www.pesthunters.com/BirdStrikeInfo.htm
https://www.avemco.com/briefingroom/birdstrikes.asp
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/fi...ky/strike.html

and many other good sources that I found with a Google search (terms: "bird
strikes" +"aviation").

In years past, there were certain seasons when one flew certain military
low-level training routes with extra caution due to bird strike potential.
Low-level hops in areas where 20 lb.-plus carrion birds are common
(Southeastern US, for instance) can be particularly hazardous.

BTW, low frequency is irrelevant if it happens to YOU.

--
Mike Kanze

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

-Mark Twain


"Kristan Roberge" wrote in message
...


Eugene Griessel wrote:

"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.

How often do you strike 4 pounds of bird? Other than ducks and geese, I
can't
think of many 4 pound birds you might run a plane into.