3 ms·
I'm just glad they used gelatin to simulate a bird. As soon as I heard the guy say he wanted to compare the impact of a drone vs the impact of a bird, I was men
by k_sze 8y ago
I'm just glad they used gelatin to simulate a bird. As soon as I heard the guy say he wanted to compare the impact of a drone vs the impact of a bird, I was mentally gasping. XD
I wonder if the results would have been different if they moulded the gelatin into a bird shape (it's moulded as a cylinder in the video, if I'm not mistaken) because then the pressure would have been different. Of course it would probably have been harder to fire from the air pressure cannon.
The block of gelatin also didn't seem to have any hard bits embedded inside. Real birds have bones. While small birds' bones aren't particularly tough, I'm pretty sure the beaks of raptors and some nut-eating birds are tough stuff.
- PaulKeeble 8y agoInitially plane parts (engines, wings, cockpits) were tested against dead birds but nowadays we have so many live strikes every year that in practice we know what the proxy based on gelatin is for a variety of birds. Gelatin is harder than flesh but softer than bone and the overall effect is that on average it has the same effect as birds because it is more like an average representation. While parts of birds are relatively tough they aren't in sufficient volume or weight to penetrate any more. That isn't to say a bird strike isn't pretty dangerous because they can be. Jet cockpits get severely damaged by them as do engines and you can see in the video the effect on a wing.
- stevenwoo 8y agoSupposed they have used a pneumatic cannon with bird carcasses for testing purposes and Mythbusters tried it with a frozen and non frozen IIRC, though this says clay works just as well. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/catapoultry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/catapoultry/