Maybe even auto laser-turrets for more epic-ness?

Since we have such a shitshow of a US government, can someone tell the new FAA person to add turrets to planes? Ya know, 'Murica 2nd Amendment and all… 👀

Surely, nothing will ever go wrong with this? Right?

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The intake of a jet engine can kill birds a dozen at a time. The exhaust can drive them extinct. A turret would be just showing off.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The bullets that don’t hit the birds would rain down on populated areas.
    Bird strikes happen at lower altitudes and airliners fly much higher than birds unless they’re taking off or landing, and they almost always takeoff or land near a populated area.
    More people would die on average from stay bullets then from airplane crates caused my bird strikes

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      What’s the terminal velocity of a bullet? My guess is that it’s similar to the terminal velocity of a penny.

      In other words, raining bullets are highly unlikely to directly kill anyone (although they could still sting if they hit you, or chip your windshield).

      They could use ice bullets and solve that problem though….

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Terminal velocity is really only relevant for objects that go below terminal velocity and then start falling. Bullets famously come out of guns very fast, so fast they go into people.

        While air will slow the bullet down, tell that to the guy over over 2 miles away from Viacheslav Kovalskyi

        Now, bird shot ain’t sniper rounds, but the point stands.

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Bullets also famously come out of guns horizontally. As they travel, their horizontal speed decreases due to friction (slowly) and their horizontal speed accelerates until it hits terminal velocity.

          Now one point here is that the only place where you’d be shooting at birds is during takeoff and landing; this is near the ground, and in both cases, the aircraft is nose up — which means the bullet wouldn’t be traveling at height until it lost momentum and fell, but would instead follow an arc that would still likely preserve a lot of forward momentum as the bullet approached the surface of the earth.

          But it’s not falling bullets that are dangerous; it’s bullets moving forward with velocity that cause damage.

    • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, that one at Reagan was just especially tragic and in a wild week.

      Any repercussions of the gutting of the FAA and similar crap from the administration will likely take more time to become apparent, as the general air traffic control system becomes less regulated

  • TranquilTurbulence
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    That would be cool. Boringly though, there are safer ways as well. Birds tend to be scared of loud bangs, so you could scare them away with just sounds.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You do if those drones lay down firepower to clear the airspace for the aircraft.

        And as a side benefit, the drones stay in the ATC zones where aircraft go through bird airspace, so you don’t have weapons on foreign planes AND you can shoot down anything else that makes it into the aircraft’s collision zone, like other drones, balloons or military helicopters.