Drone collides AND grounds a firefighting Super Scooper in LA...

[AMann]

100mph air drops do damaging things also

 

[Bad Santa]

That came from more than pink goo. They drop pink goo on people (though mostly not on purpose).

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

Red seal at top could indicate it is an evidence bag

Red seal at top could indicate it is an evidence bag.

I saw that in a better photo:

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

The title SHOULD read "Fire Fighting Plane Hits Drone"
The other title implies the drone was the one moving fast and that's just not true.

Rank speculation, unless you've got a link to some video.

 

[Bad Santa]

Rank speculation, unless you've got a link to some video.

Not rank speculation.
The drone can be in the air without horizontal velocity. The airplane cannot.
The drone can fly a max of 25ish mph. The plane needs at least 100mph.

Unless the laws of physics have changed, the faster object is the one that impacts the slower object.

I suppose, IF the drone were to have been fired from a cannon or trebuchet, it might be plausible that it was the faster object.

It's physics, man!

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

Physics is physics. Your scenario of the plane striking the drone and not the drone striking the plane is speculation. You've made an assumption which has yet to be proven, on your opinion. That's rank speculation. Unless you've got some video.

It's speculation, man.

 

[Bad Santa]

Physics is physics. Your scenario of the plane striking the drone and not the drone striking the plane is speculation. You've made an assumption which has yet to be proven, on your opinion. That's rank speculation. Unless you've got some video.

It's speculation, man.

C'mon.

Describe a scenario where the drone was flying faster than the plane.
Even looking at the damage to the battery indicates the drone was hit from behind.

 

[Photo Booth]

100mph air drops do damaging things alsoView attachment 180576

That damage, while true that it was caused by a fire retardant drop, was NOT done during the LA fires. Which I know you didn't state, but your message sort of implies.

Mark

 

[Photo Booth]

That came from more than pink goo. They drop pink goo on people (though mostly not on purpose).

Don't you get tired of constantly being proven wrong?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Mark

 

[Bad Santa]

Don't you get tired of constantly being proven wrong?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Mark

Is there a specific reason you are trolling me?

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

Describe a scenario where the drone was flying faster than the plane.

What? First I never stated or implied the drone was flying faster than the plane. That's a misdirection on your part. What you're calling a law of physics may be no more than semantics and convention, neither of which are immutable as we currently view "laws of physics". Not the same thing.

Even looking at the damage to the battery indicates the drone was hit from behind.

That's an opinion. You've got a 50% chance of being correct. That could have been done by the drone being struck from behind. It could have been done when the drone tumbled after penetrating the wing and striking something more solid, like a spar. Both are speculation.

Facts I have no trouble with. Opinions offered as opinions I have no trouble with. I'll wait while investigating authorities make a finding before accepting speculation as fact.

 

[AMann]

That damage, while true that it was caused by a fire retardant drop, was NOT done during the LA fires. Which I know you didn't state, but your message sort of implies.

Mark

No implication intended, just sharing another example of the physics of mass, speed and inertia using firefighting planes as an example.

 

[AMann]

That came from more than pink goo. They drop pink goo on people (though mostly not on purpose).

Actually, that really did come from a retardant drop. During firefighter training I did a long time ago, they showed us a photo how there was a pilot that was playing a joke on a fire crew and dropped right in front of their truck, the whole front end of the truck was imploded. The stuff really does carry some mass with it. Forest Service now has training videos about not dropping on equipment because of this, there’s a couple on YouTube that are interesting to see. The truck picture I posted was from one of them.

Some interesting stuff about the power of inertia and retardant drops here also.

 

[jaja6009]

100mph air drops do damaging things alsoView attachment 180576

In our last fire academy class, our state wildland fire division performed a live fire evolution where their converted UH1 dropped water on a small training fire. I was shocked at the force of the water hitting everything around and including the fire. We're an urban department so we do not get to see things like that other than in training.

 

[Bad Santa]

A long time ago, there was a pilot that was playing a joke on a fire crew and dropped right in front of their truck, the whole front end of the truck was imploded. The stuff really does carry some mass with it. Forest Service now has training videos about not dropping on equipment because of this, there’s a couple on YouTube that are interesting to see. The truck picture I posted was from one of them.

I stand corrected, though I was referring to the drops they normally do.
I had never witnessed a close proximity drop. Even water at that speed and mass could do that kind of damage, I think. Maybe the pink goo has more impact because it has an ingredient to make it stick so it's more of a super fluid kind of impact.

 

[AZDave]

My understanding of that is the drone should have been obliterated by the plane, not the other way around (plane has much more acceleration). If the plane was standing still and the drone was going 400mph I could see it doing that damage, but not the other way around. As it is, even if it the Mini 3 wasn't hovering, it is for all intents stationary compared to the fast moving airplane. I'm not saying the drone didn't cause that damage, but it doesn't seem right in my mind re physics.

LOL!! You clearly have zero understanding of physics. Impact is a function of the relative speed of the two objects involved. And damage is a function of the ability of the impacted surfaces to withstand the impact, not the entire structure. The thin skin of the airplane wing is less resistant (and less supported) than the dense drone and it's battery.

Hope you don't vote.

 

[AZDave]

Not rank speculation.
The drone can be in the air without horizontal velocity. The airplane cannot.
The drone can fly a max of 25ish mph. The plane needs at least 100mph.

Unless the laws of physics have changed, the faster object is the one that impacts the slower object.

I suppose, IF the drone were to have been fired from a cannon or trebuchet, it might be plausible that it was the faster object.

It's physics, man!

Your understanding of physics is as useless as Lazerbrain's, so I'll repeat my reply to him here for you.

Impact is a function of the relative speed of the two objects involved. And damage is a function of the ability of the impacted surfaces to withstand the impact, not the entire structure. The thin skin of the airplane wing is less resistant (and less supported) than the dense drone and its battery.

Which is the faster object has no bearing at all on the damage involved or which one sustain s the damage. If I throw a baseball at your head it is the faster object, but it's your head that will sustain the damage.

 

[Bad Santa]

Your understanding of physics is as useless as Lazerbrain's, so I'll repeat my reply to him here for you.

Impact is a function of the relative speed of the two objects involved. And damage is a function of the ability of the impacted surfaces to withstand the impact, not the entire structure. The thin skin of the airplane wing is less resistant (and less supported) than the dense drone and its battery.

Which is the faster object has no bearing at all on the damage involved or which one sustain s the damage. If I throw a baseball at your head it is the faster object, but it's your head that will sustain the damage.

I can assure you that my understanding of physics is superior to most. My comment had nothing to do with relative speed at moment of impact. It had everything to do with semantics.

The faster of two objects, colliding, is the one that hit the other.

And that hit, between the two objects, would have been in the neighborhood of 350 joules.
And by extrapolation, I can calculate that that amount of energy by a drone impact on a water drop airplane could leave a 3x6" hole in the leading edge of the airplane if it was a direct hit. By extrapolate, I mean I could look at the picture.

Without knowing the thickness of the aluminum on the leading edge of the wing, it would be near impossible to calculate the damage beforehand.