Couple Paints "FU FAA" On Roof To Protest Jet Noise

Fed up with a change in flight patterns that made them sleep in bed at night with earplugs, one Philly couple decided to paint “FUCK YOU FAA. NO FLY ZONE” and a symbol for “no planes” on the top of their roof. Note: in real life, it says “fuck” but the newspaper photoshopped it to just say “FU.” Homeowner Michael Hall said they had tried to lodge complaints with the FAA noise-complaint hotline over 20 times, but whenever they called, an answering machines would apologize for not being able to take their message as the mailbox was full.

“I wanted to have little things that were shooting the plane down, but my girlfriend thought I would get arrested, so I settled for the picture that’s up there,” Hall said. We applaud Mr. Hall’s creative solution to getting his voice heard.

Fed up with jet noise, couple raise the roof [] (Thanks to Rachel!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. protest says:

    “…noise complaints have increased significantly since the new departure headings went into effect but that it’s too early to tell if there’s a correlation.”

    are you effing kidding me?? i swear there is a maximum IQ score of 70 if you want to hold a position of authority in this country.
    also, this guy, and anyone should be able to write whatever the hell they want on their roof as long as they own it.

  2. arch05 says:

    “I wanted to have little things that were shooting the plane down”

    This is where he loses my compassion. Idiots respond in idiotic fashion.

  3. mrmysterious says:

    Just to clarify that they actually spell out FUCK, but the picture in the article (and on here) is edited because society is so sensitive.

  4. remusrm says:


  5. rustyni says:

    That’s amusing. :)

  6. savvy999 says:

    Is that a sweet 70’s pop-up trailer in the driveway?

    I bet they haul that up to the Poconos in the summertime, string up lights around it that look like little chile peppers.

  7. Black Bellamy says:

    During the Cold War some Air Force dudes painted giant insults in Russian on top of the hangars so that the Soviet satellite image analysts would have something to read. The Soviets complained throught their ambassador that such rudeness was contrary to the spirit of detente, and the signage was removed.

  8. BlondeGrlz says:

    I lived very near a Naval Air Station for a year, and the jet noise was no joke. Window shaking, things falling off walls, wake you up in the middle of the night LOUD. Good for this guy, he’s my new hero.

  9. kelptocratic says:

    A few years ago, I visited my brother who was living in Snowmass, CO. If I remember it correctly, on the road from Aspen to Snowmass was a barn with an enormous hand flipping the bird painted on the roof. The local story was that the owner of the barn’s wife had left him for an airline pilot or something, and this was his attempt at sweet revenge. Pretty damn funny, even if the story was B.S.

  10. pepe prawn says:

    @blondegrlz: i lived about 25 miles away from a naval air station before. it was loud as hell! those planes would punch it shortly after take off… usually around 3 or 4 in the morning. i couldn’t take it… i had to move.

  11. tk427 says:

    The township manager is checking the ordinances?
    What’s the problem?

    fu fu fu fu fu fu fu

    Are the feds going to come after me with a bar of soap now?

  12. fearuncertaintydoubt says:

    I love it, but…I’m sure the guy will be arrested as a terrorist because he is “interfering with air travel” or some such phony charge.

    What’s disturbing about the photo is not that it was altered to protect the children (that’s just pathetic), but that they photoshopped it in such a way that you don’t realize it was edited. This is the most troubling part about the current state of censorship technology. You can redact but make it appear intact (take that, Jesse Jackson!). They should have put black bars or pixellation some other obvious form of obscuring the picture.

    Oh, and the picture of the plane should have been larger. :-)

  13. citking says:

    I just wonder, who was there first, the homeowner or the airport. I’m guessing the airport was first. Don’t like it? Move.

    Sorry, but with all of the important stuff going on in this world, I think planes flying over your house and making noise is about the least of anyone’s concerns outside of this family. Life’s tough. get used to it or move. From what I hear the housing market is primed for buyers. Good luck selling yours though.

  14. NefariousNewt says:

    Well, unless the FAA is reading the newspaper or The Consumerist, I doubt much will come of it. Of course, should this make its way onto CNN…

  15. jimv2000 says:

    Wimp. I live about a mile north of an airforce base, right under where they take off and land, and from about 8 am to 5 pm, they’re launching F-15’s and all kinds of jets. You just get used to it after awhile.

  16. SVreader says:

    Best quotation from the article:
    “I wouldn’t write anything like that, but I’m a 75-year-old woman and it might be difficult for me to jump up on the roof,” one neighbor said.

    I do have to say, though, that I’ve seen both sides of this. I realize how loud airplanes can be, but I’ve also had close-calls at airports where the flight was delayed, and then we were told that we might not be able to fly because curfew was approaching.

    I feel awful for the people in this article, though!

  17. Myron says:

    Clearly he is a threat to national security. He’s probably on a plane to Gitmo right now.

  18. SVreader says:

    @fearuncertaintydoubt: That is odd. Why bother to make it look like it wasn’t censored? Why not just a black bar? Heck, you can do that in MS Paint.

  19. BlondeGrlz says:

    @citking: Jeez, guy, give him a break. The article says the flight patterns were changed, so it wasn’t a problem when he bought the house, but it is now.
    @pepe prawn: I asked an Air Force pilot why the planes were always flying in the middle of the night, and was told that there’s a dawn/dusk window where they can’t fly because of increased bird (!) activity. Apparently getting a seagull in your engine is very serious. So they either fly during the day, or before sunrise.

  20. Buran says:

    @fearuncertaintydoubt: For what? It’s a violation of free speech to arrest you for sentiments like this. People who have flipped cops off have gotten the subsequent arrest wiped from their records due to the First Amendment. You can express this sentiment as much as you like on your own property and since you aren’t harming anyone there’s nothing to arrest for.

    Editing photos such that you don’t realize the edit, and failing to disclose the edit, is a huge no-no in journalism. There’s a tiny “photo altered” disclaimer, but IMO that’s not enough — they need to explain what they did and why. It’s just bad journalism to worry that someone will get offended. Journalists are there to report the truth, not pander to crybabies.

    (note: I’ve done coursework in photojournalism and am an amateur photographer, so this stuff is a big deal to me).

  21. NefariousNewt says:

    @citking: There in lies the point of the exercise. Government agency changes rules, resulting in homeowner being inconvenienced. Homeowner tries to complain, but gets nowhere with government agency. Decides on novel way to complain.

    The fact is these people (and their neighbors) are going to be able to move, because they will never be able to sell their house, which is the single biggest asset they have. Yeah, you had to be pretty dumb to live within ten miles of an airport, but once you do, you have the right to expect the FAA to give you ample opportunity to lodge a complaint about their policies. Frankly, the government should start buying out houses around airports and demolishing them, to keep people from moving into them in the first place. Just my opinion.

  22. tk427 says:

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Does anyone know what it means when you see a kid walking around in a t-shirt that says:

    ” f.u.c.k. “

    Does it stand for something else, or just fuck?

  23. ripple says:

    Gotta love the people who move next to an airport and then bitch about the noise. Its just like th epeople who build a house right next to a river and then bitch when there is a flood. He never should have moved there if he didnt want noise.

  24. citking says:

    @blondegrlz: I understand that the flight patterns changed. If he doesn’t like it now, he should take action by (re-)moving himself rather than trying to move the airport (so to speak). Bring Mohammad to the mountain; don’t bring the mountain to Mohammad.

  25. citking says:

    @NefariousNewt: I understand he is inconvenienced and I am not saying the FAA has done anything right yet. But if he is complaining simply because of the noise when he knew there was an airport nearby he’s being unrealistic. He probably got the property for a low price and, when the decision was made, he groused. When you live that close to the airport it’s like spinning a roulette wheel. He bet on black and got red. he needs to deal with it and move on. Rather than expecting the world to come in and comfort him, he needs to man up and move or find some sort of solution. yeah, it sucks the FAA isn’t helping. Guess what? Go on to option #2 now.

  26. Falconfire says:

    @citking: Its his fault they changed the flight pattern without allowing him to protest it (which is required by law) Im guessing your one of those guys who thinks its A OK to have your city use eminent domain laws to build a Walmart where there was once a residential area too huh.

  27. bearymore says:

    @jimv2000: Believe me, I’m sensitive to what you say. I’m a pilot at an airport that opened in 1926 and that is under constant pressure to be closed from yuppies who moved in over the last 10 or 15 years — some buying houses right off the departure end of the runway. That being said, read the article. The couple have lived in the house for 10 years. The noise started with recent changes in the airport’s departure patterns. Check out Google Maps. They live over 2 miles from the airport.

  28. citking says:

    @Falconfire: In your example, the “Walmart” is the airport. It was there first. They don’t like it? Move.

  29. BlondeGrlz says:

    @citking: But as you pointed out, he’s going to have a heck of a time selling a house directly under the flight line. I have never landed at an airport without first flying over several neighborhoods, so saying no one should live within 10 miles is ridiculous. On the other hand, when they built Dulles Airport outside DC, it was “the middle of nowhere” and the housing came later, so those people can suck it. This guy has a genuine issue, although if the flight pattern was changed for safety reasons, I don’t think his peace and quiet should matter much.

  30. Banned in DC says:

    @tk427: The shirt probably says F.C.U.K, which is short for French Connection, UK, a clothing chain.

  31. emilymarion333 says:


    They are wearing shirts that say FCUK – its stands for French Connection UK – its a clothing company..

  32. Falconfire says:

    @citking: The flight pattern wasnt though, and they dont just “up and change” it takes a ton of paperwork and public hearings that the FAA avoided going through.

    @blondegrlz: They use safety as a euphemism. Living around the flight pattern for Liberty International (aka Newark) most often its money that dictates a change in the pattern, not safety. Odds are the pattern was over some expensive neighborhood. Happens all the time in the Newark/JFK/LaGuardia area. 9/10 times its money that caused the landing and approach pattern to change.

  33. ywgflyer says:

    There’s a sign on the roof of one of the buildings in a small community up north here in Manitoba that says ‘White Man Go Home’. Made me laugh the first time I saw it.

    Anyways, back on topic here… I’d love to know which came first – the airport or the house. If it’s the house, then perhaps he has a valid complaint. If it’s the airport, well then it’s his fault, and he’s just another NIMBY to me. I don’t see where the departure procedure he’s talking about here has been amended – the only departure on file from PHL dictates a turn to heading 240 until 3DME from the end of the runway (it’s taken from a localizer, but I doubt many people will know what I’m talking about here). It appears to get planes to fly down the Delaware before they get over the noise-sensitive areas.

  34. lincolnparadox says:

    @blondegrlz: As much as it sucks, I have to agree with citking. The airport has been there, in one form or another, since 1925. Sure, the flight plan over this guy’s house might be new, but Philly International is a US Airways hub and one of the few direct portals to Beijing from the US. It’s a damned busy airport (which I avoid).

    A complaint to the FAA is the way to go, but Ridley is less than 4 miles away from the airport (as the 747 flies) and I don’t think that any amount of social engineering is going to change his situation.

    My suggesting is to build a bunker basement underneath the house. Not for everyday living, but for bedrooms and a rumpus room. It’s comfortable. It’s energy-efficient (especially if they turn the lights off and the heat down upstairs when they head down). Plus it can be built to be sound proof.

    Push comes to shove, get an estimate and take the City to court. He might win.

  35. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    A number of years ago, outside of a small airport, a farmer got fed up with all the pilots buzzing his animals during landings & take-offs.
    So he painted on his barn roof, “Welcome to ABC”, which was the next airport over just to confuse them.
    Some of them did think they were at the wrong airport & I remember there were complaints, but don’t remember the rest of it.

  36. UpsetPanda says:

    @blondegrlz: Oh yeah, birds in engines are very dangerous. They can tear up propellers and all sorts of parts.

    In college I was near a train line and during my first few months of freshman year, I wasn’t used to it. I’d wake up whenever the train went by in the middle of the night. It wasn’t flight path kind of loud, but it was loud enough to annoy me until I got used to it. When my fiancee moved to the D.C. area, he had to get used to being around Dulles airport, and the constant airplane noise.

  37. joemono says:

    “But Anne E. Howanski, Ridley Township manager, isn’t so sure Hall has the right to invoke that particular word on his own house, even if it isn’t visible from the street.

    “I will have to check our ordinance on this,” she said. “It appears to be an obscenity and we will be in touch.”

    Is it wrong that I kind of want to punch Anne in the face? And then in the stomach? And then in the face again?

  38. BlondeGrlz says:

    @lincolnparadox: Yeah, I just looked up the airport history and I’m betting 1925 trumps whenever that house was built. No matter where you put an airport, some people are going to hear airplane noise. I feel bad for him (esp when it comes to resale value of his home) but what can you do? I just didn’t like citking’s original attitude with it being the guy’s fault for buying a home there. But like I said earlier, I lived with F-15 jet noise for a year, and if I could learn to sleep through that, he can sleep through regular old planes.

  39. dgcaste says:

    I need some GPS coordinates :-)

  40. JMH says:

    They should definitely keep it up there for long enough for Google Maps to capture the image.

  41. overbysara says:

    sweet we should all start writing on our roofs and then look at them on google earth.

  42. IphtashuFitz says:

    I live about 20 miles as the crow flies from Logan Airport in Boston. I’m apparently under one of their alternate flight paths that is only used when the winds are blowing in an unusual direction. More often than not it’s around 3:00 in the morning when I’ll wake up and think there’s a jet landing on my roof top.

    Having said that, if these people got their way then the whole airline industry would come to a halt since airplanes wouldn’t be allowed anywhere. There’s a group called “Stop the Noise” that’s trying to get laws passed to require pilots to get permission of homeowners before flying over their property. Although currently only targeting general aviation, if it sets a precedent then commercial air traffic could eventually be affected as well. For more details check out [] .

  43. SacraBos says:

    @Black Bellamy: Digital Equipment Corporation had the phrase “CVAX – When you care enough to steal the very best” in Cyrillic on their microprocess chip masks. They knew they were getting smuggled into Russia during the Cold War, and had a sense of humor.


  44. bsalamon says:

    lived in the flight paths of both JFK and Laguardia in NY, and well, I got used to it. On most days I hear 747s revving up their engines before takeoff, and I still remember that the Concorde would land at 8:12am every weekday morning. It is not as horrible as you think.

  45. SacraBos says:

    @bearymore: That wouldn’t be Long Beach, would it? Sounds about what’s happened there.

  46. riverstyxxx says:

    Check this video, you’re gonna love it. Courtesy of Starterup:


    Hard to believe that such a universal word could be so offensive. It means so many things!

  47. Pipes says:

    For all those who say that it’s their fault they chose to live next to an airport, consider this:

    My apartment is 2.1 miles from a major airport. I chose to rent there because I can hear NOTHING when I’m inside! When I’m on my balcony, I can hear and see planes taking off. But as soon as I’m back inside, it’s peace and quiet. Why? Because the flights take off in the opposite direction, and planes very rarely fly right over my apartment.

    Were the flight paths changed, it would be easy for me to change apartments. But in this type of housing market, it will be impossible for them to sell their house.

    I can attest that they’ll get used to it, though, as my parents live about 300 feet from busy railroad tracks. I don’t even hear them anymore, and I only notice a train is coming by when the walls start shaking. I can sleep right through it, easily.

  48. ywgflyer says:


    That ‘Stop the Noise’ thing is interesting. Good idea for the homeowners, bad idea for us ‘plane drivers. I already spend an hour planning flights…now having to actually call a civilian group and get permission to overfly certain areas (I fly a Fairchild Metro, and it’s louder than some jets) would just be a pain.

  49. SpdRacer says:

    I only have one question: Was the airport there when they moved in? , If so then screw em! I hear this crap all the time in Chitown, the airports here have been around since the ’20s and people who built their house last year expect to have peace and quiet, living NEXT to an AIRPORT! Move or shut the hell up!

  50. IrisMR says:

    @SpdRacer: I agree. If they were there before the airport, more power to them. If they weren’t, your darn fault.

    I live near an airport and it was there before me so I respect the noise.

  51. ooby says:

    The town that the homeowner is in is 8 miles from the airport. And the airport is adjacent to a medium-sized city. How can you expect people to vacate a 10 mile radius of that airport?

    Furthermore, when the homeowner bought the house, the flight paths didn’t transverse his house. It’s not like his house is at the end of the runway. So the HUD-1 probably didn’t identify him as being near an airport. I don’t think the “you knew you were moving next to an airport” argument is valid.

  52. ekthesy says:


    That wouldn’t be Republic Arpt on Long Island, would it? The list of airports that opened in 1926 and are within distance of yuppies is probably pretty short.

  53. macinjosh says:

    He should have gone high-brow and painted a detour sign instead. :)

  54. shadow735 says:

    I have only one thing to say about this, unless the airport was built after you bought the house you are living in, then they need to shut up and deal with it. Its called thinking, you buy a house near an airport you are going to deal with noise.

    Now if he was there before the airport was build then I give him kudos and wish him well on his fight. The again, just as the oil companies have our Govt in their pocket, he is not going to go anywere because the airline companies have a leash on our govt.

  55. ninjatales says:

    So why’d they use photoshop to alter that image? Can’t they just use PaintBrush to cover up the word?

    Reminds me of Harry Potter where they can’t say “his” name. Stupid Philly papers.

  56. TechnoDestructo says:
  57. nequam says:

    @jimv2000: You’re right. I grew up near an Air Force base and became so accustomed to it that I rarely notice airplane noise.

    As for the guy with the roof: Dem planes gots to fly sumwhere. Stop crying. I suppose the “good for him” commenters never fly (or at least don’t realize that planes travel over other people’s homes).

  58. Landru says:

    Thanks for chiming in, Mister Blame-the-victim:

    Move? The whole city should be at the whim of airport?

    The airport in my town was here before me, but if they change the approach routes to over my house, you bet I’m going to complain and complain big.

  59. IphtashuFitz says:

    @ywgflyer: Imagine having to get permission of every private homeowner between the airport you take off from and the one you land at. That’s what it sounds like those “Stop the Noise” people are hoping for.

  60. Jordan Lund says:

    I grew up in a house that was next door to a sawmill and across the street from railroad tracks. I can pretty much sleep through anything.

  61. Szin says:

    My friend lives right under, and I mean DIRECTLY right under the flight path. It’s surprising how you get use to it. I live right near LGA myself, and the noise never really bothered me. Although, I live in such a way that we can’t EVER be under the flight path, due to LGA’s unique and scary runway system!

  62. cmdr.sass says:

    If I was the station director over there at Fox29, I would fire whoever photoshopped that image. Yes, it is noted as altered, but that is just not acceptable behavior in a “news” organization.

  63. nequam says:

    @Landru: Thanks for chiming in, Mister NIMBY.

  64. kostia says:

    I used to live near an air force base (MacDill, in Tampa), and now I live right near Dulles Airport. You definitely get used to the jet noise. Occasionally in Tampa we’d hear sonic booms from the fighters; that was much less easy to ignore.

  65. trujunglist says:


    And you would definitely have the right to do so, although the FAA is an interesting agency unlike no other in the US. The FAA is unique in that it is supposed to protect the American public from air related problems, but at the same time it receives moneys from the air industry to promote the air industry. So, there’s sort of a problem there, because who do you think has more power over the FAA? My guess is that they’re more (read: always) likely to listen to the group that is giving them the most money, public interest be damned.
    By the way, for all you “blame the victim” idiots out there who suggest that they should move because the aiport was there before them: sorry to burst your bubble, but that doesn’t matter at all. Whenever a change as major as approach routes is made at an airport, a noise study is required by law. Unfortunately, as outlined above, the FAA could give two shits about the results and will likely find a loophole or manipulate data to avoid having to mitigate the noise, buy the owner out, or scrap the plan.
    As an acoustical engineer, I work on similar projects to this frequently, but more often involving highway redesigns where I design noise barriers. Just as frequently, it is in the state DOT’s best interest not to have to provide a noise barrier. However, being the good guy that I am, I often try to find loopholes in the state DOT’s policy to protect people. I don’t think it’s very fair to widen a 2 lane highway to 4 lanes and expect people to deal with it or move because the noise increases to levels that they’re not used to, do you? That’s why there is language in these policies that will say something like “impact level is 66, but residents affected by an increase of 10 decibels or more shall be considered impacted as well. Special consideration given to residents affected by an increase of 20 decibels are considered severely impacted and must be dealt with on a case by case basis.”

  66. P41 says:

    The takeoff path from the San Diego airport is over a densely populated area. I’ve read the airport spent years soundproofing houses, including something like 2″ thick windows. A LOT of houses, like ten thousand or something. Surely if an airport for airplanes that loud is going to change their flight path (too bad so many people didn’t read closely enough to see it was a change) they can do something to cure the impact on a couple of people. And yeah a newspaper’s going to make their picture suitable for publishing, but making it look unedited is confusing, to put it nicely.

    Oh and hats off to the girlfriend, of COURSE he’d be charged with making a terrorist threat or something.

  67. trujunglist says:


    Yeah, there are lots of ways to mitigate the noise in this situation, including upgrading the houses with insulation, acoustical windows, etc. However, there’s really not a whole lot you can do for those really low frequencies that rumble you and shake stuff from your walls. Additionally, doing any of those things requires money, and quite a bit of it. Normally, retrofitting a house is the LAST option that they want to pursue because it’s incredibly expensive. Unfortunately, it’s one of the only options for air related noise, so the FAA will ask the firms that prepare the environmental impact report to change this or that to make it so the homes do not qualify for mitigation.
    In this type of situation the thing to do is for the neighborhood to get together, get an attorney, find an expert in INM (the model they use for aircraft noise), and debunk the EIR. But no matter what, they’re looking at at least a couple of years to even get considered for mitigation… and only if they succeed.
    Seems to me (and the article suggests it as well) like the EIR was crap and/or manipulated to appease the FAA, as seems to be the norm. Hopefully it wasn’t our boys (and girls) that did the study…

  68. MercuryPDX says:

    @tk427: []

    “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”: an acronym coined when a seaman was dischaeged for going a shore and having sex “fornicating”. Ships logs show discharge for unlawful carnal knowlege which gave way to the acronym f.u.c.k.

    “Fornification Under Consent of King”: Used in England during the 15th century to denote having permission to have sex. It was implemented in an attempt to slow down the population growth, as the number of people living in England at the time was quickly approaching the limit that the country could support.

  69. MercuryPDX says:

    I lived near JFK for years before I moved, and eventually you adapt to ignore the noise; so much so that I’ve had a “something is off” feeling in the absence of that noise and difficulty sleeping until I “reset” the other way.

    That said, I think it’s great that he’s expressing his displeasure.

  70. trujunglist says:

    When I first moved to an apt near Clark and Division on Chicago, I was so pissed off at the incredible amount of noise at ALL hours of the day and night and I don’t think I slept for the first 2 months there. After that, I totally adjusted and slept through anything and everything.
    Then, I moved back to Tucson for a week, and I couldn’t sleep there because of the eery quiet! It was so annoying NOT hearing people breaking bottles and yelling at 4am suddenly.
    Then I moved to San Diego when I got a job here, and I think I’m at a nice middle ground, where sometimes the neighbors are noisy bastards and overhead flights from the AFB are rumbling along, and sometimes it’s so quiet I can hear practically hear the blood circulating in my veins (joking of course, that only happens in real anechoic chambers at like 15 dB or something).

  71. goodkitty says:

    @joemono: I’m pretty sure punching Anne in the face is also against township ordinances. Perhaps you could simply send her a strongly worded letter, of course making sure that she doesn’t feel offended in any way.

  72. Kaix says:

    Good, the FAA is finally doing something about old ass airways. Now if they could just implement free flight and get the new ATC system going… and if the busiest airports could get more parallel runways we’d be set.

    Airport noise is such a fun topic… so much emotion!

  73. AlphaWolf says:

    I cannot believe all of the people on here with the blame the victim mentality, I say good for them for standing up to the FAA.

    There is an airport north of where I live, and the damn helicopters seem to love to change flight patterns every so often. So in the middle of the night you think a helicopter is landing on your roof. Complaining to the mayor and the town is a lot more fruitful than the FAA.

  74. ooby says:

    I’m guessing that helicopters fly by visual flight rules, not air-traffic control.

  75. BugMeNot2 says:

    MERCURYPDX: check snopes

  76. Camon says:

    Im not going to show this guy any sympathy.

    I live in Tempe, AZ right under the eastern flight path for PHX.

  77. av8er152 says:

    I bet these people don’t mind airplane noise when they are flying away on vacation. All I can say is deal with it. Aviation is an important part of society in our modern world, and it is going to require less restrictions as our airspace system gets increasingly crowded. And believe it or not, most modern jet aircraft are pretty damn quiet as compared to older aircraft. If you don’t like it and don’t want to hear it, then move into the country far away from any airports.

  78. Difdi says:

    If someone shifted the flightpaths for night flights over my house, to the extent I was unable to sleep… I would get in *so* much trouble for this, I bet, but I own an old copy of Jane’s Weapon Systems (1977 edition) that includes data on Soviet missile targeting radar systems, including enough data to build something close enough to make cockpit warning systems go off, using parts from Radio Shack. Put one in the backyard, aimed straight up. Fun to think about…