Video shows devastating damage drones can inflict on planes

[swooshdave]

Please - do tell us what the flaws were...

As someone pointed out that plane can’t go that fast low enough to hit a drone.

 

[ac0j]

That is not the point...
As @sar104 points out;
They proved that if you build a large drone rifle, and you lock it in a vise aimed perfectly at the 5 inch tall leading edge of an old, built for speed, lightweight wing making sure to hit the void between structural segments also making sure there are no external forces like air pressure, wind, or pilot input, Take careful aim, after maybe a few less impressive control shots. You can make a hole in the wing ALMOST as big as a small Gel boneless simulated bird.

It is Mayhem, The world is sure to fall to drones.

 

[sar104]

As someone pointed out that plane can’t go that fast low enough to hit a drone.

Just because someone on a forum asserted that doesn't make it true. But, if it makes you feel better to believe that so that you can dismiss professional researchers doing actual tests - knock yourself out.

 

[sar104]

That is not the point...
As @sar104 points out;
They proved that if you build a large drone rifle, and you lock it in a vise aimed perfectly at the 5 inch tall leading edge of an old, built for speed, lightweight wing making sure to hit the void between structural segments also making sure there are no external forces like air pressure, wind, or pilot input, Take careful aim, after maybe a few less impressive control shots. You can make a hole in the wing ALMOST as big as a small Gel boneless simulated bird.

It is Mayhem, The world is sure to fall to drones.

Actually what they showed is simply that a Phantom-sized drone can do structural damage to a general aviation wing. Not surprising, despite all the bluster in these discussions that these things would just bounce off with little damage, but still a useful data point, especially if it encourages funding for a more comprehensive study.

But, feel free to move the goal posts, and try to argue that the damage is irrelevant because such a collision will never happen. Far too unlikely. Especially as such collisions have already occurred - that makes it even less likely that it will ever happen again - yes? Or that a real aircraft would probably be going a bit slower at likely collision altitudes, and would be just fine.

 

[ac0j]

Actually what they showed is simply that a Phantom-sized drone can do structural damage to a general aviation wing. Not surprising, despite all the bluster in these discussions that these things would just bounce off with little damage, but still a useful data point, especially if it encourages funding for a more comprehensive study.

But, feel free to move the goal posts, and try to argue that the damage is irrelevant because such a collision will never happen. Far too unlikely. Especially as such collisions have already occurred - that makes it even less likely that it will ever happen again - yes? Or that a real aircraft would probably be going a bit slower at likely collision altitudes, and would be just fine.

The posts are PLANTED, and further supported by this study. Two collisions recorded, no significant damage. Perfect worst case scenario man made test, pretty much a bird strike.
Not a catastrophic event. Are you saying more money needs to be spent just so someone can figure out out how to down a commercial flight with a one pound toy? That is just dumb.

 

[sar104]

The posts are PLANTED, and further supported by this study. Two collisions recorded, no significant damage. Perfect worst case scenario man made test, pretty much a bird strike.
Not a catastrophic event. Are you saying more money needs to be spent just so someone can figure out out how to down a commercial flight with a one pound toy? That is just dumb.

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing this with you any more.

 

[ac0j]

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing this with you any more.

Fair enough. I was discussing and giving alternative points, You seem stuck on we need to spend tons money on research till we figure out how to crash a plane with a drone, because it refuses to happen in real life.

 

[lmel2005]

How much money we must spend, to prove that hitting a light wing, at its more sensitive edge, with ANYTHING weighing 1 kilogramme or more, in a 300 kph speed, will make a hole?

If the motivation was to build more durable wings, I would understand that.
But as it is presented, doesn't seem to be very "scientific".

They aim to the ignorant, to show how "dangerous drones are" (maybe DJI drones).
And they make tests to show the hole, because they can't present REAL proof.

 

[David2111]

I have a few questions for everyone who fly's beyond VLOS and who is challenging the test that is the basis of this thread.

"Would you like to volunteer to prove the test was flawed?"

"Would you like to fly towards a drone in a plane and see what happens?"

"Say you had the opportunity to fly in all sorts of planes from large commercial to small, single engine planes (they use airports as well)"

I wonder how may brave UAV pilots we have!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Simmo]

I have a few questions for everyone who fly's beyond VLOS and who is challenging the test that is the basis of this thread.

"Would you like to volunteer to prove the test was flawed?"

"Would you like to fly towards a drone in a plane and see what happens?"

"Say you had the opportunity to fly in all sorts of planes from large commercial to small, single engine planes (they use airports as well)"

I wonder how may brave UAV pilots we have!!!!!!!!!!

Silly comment really...?

How about, think of the wing of the plane, as a target.....
The drone, or Gel 'bird' is an arrow....
I can fire the arrow, directly at the target, and hit bullseye, if I'm a good shot..
Now if I juxtapose, I throw the target at the arrow......

In real terms, this test is only showing what could happen, if.... the planets align and I win the superlottery.. now, that is far from impossible!!

 

[lmel2005]

I have a few questions for everyone who fly's beyond VLOS and who is challenging the test that is the basis of this thread.

"Would you like to volunteer to prove the test was flawed?"

"Would you like to fly towards a drone in a plane and see what happens?"

"Say you had the opportunity to fly in all sorts of planes from large commercial to small, single engine planes (they use airports as well)"

I wonder how may brave UAV pilots we have!!!!!!!!!!

Do you mean that everyone who flies VLOS, has different numbers about the frequency of drone-aircraft collisions?

 

[David2111]

Silly comment really...?

How about, think of the wing of the plane, as a target.....
The drone, or Gel 'bird' is an arrow....
I can fire the arrow, directly at the target, and hit bullseye, if I'm a good shot..
Now if I juxtapose, I throw the target at the arrow......

In real terms, this test is only showing what could happen, if.... the planets align and I win the superlottery.. now, that is far from impossible!!

You are missing the point, you are focusing on the detail of this experiment, which is really saying if you put something in the sky you might fly into it.

The thing you put in the sky might be a small thing or something a bit larger (small or larger drone).

It may not have much affect on a big plane, but lets say you were in a small plane and lets say your small plane crashed into your object (engine hit, windscreen hit etc.)

Would you want to be in the plane to check out the effect?

 

[Simmo]

I'm sorry, David, I still find your comments absurd???

 

[David2111]

Do you mean that everyone who flies VLOS, has different numbers about the frequency of drone-aircraft collisions?

Absolutely not.

As UAV pilots we put things in the sky. We are responsible for that. We are debating the results if something hits the thing we put in the sky, an aeroplane, a helicopter, a micro light etc.

The question I have asked is:

"Would you like to be in the plane that hits the drone?"

Don't forget it could be a big plane or a little plane.

The answer is of course NO, no one would want to be in a plane that hits a drone.

End of argument, fly drones responsibility so that the likelihood of causing damage to the other things that fly in the sky is negligible.

 

[Prmath]

Good debate going on here....... moral of the story, Fly BELOW 400 feet and the chances are very Very low of a drone/aircraft collision.
I fear birds much more around airports than drones........

 

[lmel2005]

Absolutely not.

As UAV pilots we put things in the sky. We are responsible for that. We are debating the results if something hits the thing we put in the sky, an aeroplane, a helicopter, a micro light etc.

The question I have asked is:

"Would you like to be in the plane that hits the drone?"

Don't forget it could be a big plane or a little plane.

The answer is of course NO, no one would want to be in a plane that hits a drone.

End of argument, fly drones responsibility so that the likelihood of causing damage to the other things that fly in the sky is negligible.

Yes, but you asked those who fly beyond VLOS, and at the same time they think that test was flawed.

I usually fly VLOS but I think that this experiment is unnecessary. Anyone understands, that if we throw a potato, a stone, a chicken or a drone on the soft side of a light wing, with 350 kph, it will make a hole.

Also, I agree with you, that we must stay under 150m, but I already know that a collision is the most rare incident in the world of technology. Don't need an experiment for this, either.

And the risk is height, not distance.

 

[ac0j]

I don’t fly beyond vlos either and rarely over 200’. Because I respect the regulatory “suggestions”
It’s the registered pilots that do fly miles away and near airports because they have to have that “shot” on their hard drive that are the problem they are trying to solve
The point is, no matter what regulations you come up with , there will always be people ignoring them. Tell me how more regulation will do anything.
If drones have pilots too scared, then maybe flying planes is not for them any more.

 

[dannybgoode]

I saw that the other day. I suspect the smaller, collapsible drones like the Pro and Air would do significantly less damage. They will still probably punch a hole, just smaller. I would not want to hit an Inspire in a plane...

**** straight. Write off a $$$$$$ Inspire - that would suck. The MA etc are more disposable

 

[DesJardins]

Lots of feelings in posts like this, LOL