- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 17
- Reactions
- 5
- Age
- 67
i live here at the cape and it was a chunk of ice a big chunk of ice that damaged the wing of Columbia not Styrofoam.
Drone crashed into plane in Netherlands today
- Thread starter RuudF
- Start date
Big-Foot
Well-Known Member
I'm a pilot (light aircraft & drones) and an engineer - but not an aerospace engineer.
The aluminum alloy used in almost every light airplane is 2024-T3. The most common thicknesses used are 0.020 in., 0.032 in., and in some aircraft, 0.040 in. As I was told by a licensed A&P who was rebuilding a crash damaged plane at the FBO I flew out of, typically these panels are formed to their bucks at the factory and then annealed to the proper temper. They can take a lot of abuse as they are hardened to withstand a degree of impact without catastrophic damage.
It is very difficult to tell how or what might have damaged this aircraft (looks like Cessna 210), but the proximity of the dent to the landing gear suggests that it could well have been damaged by a rock being kicked up off of the main gear?
I am suspicious of the damage being done by a drone for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that the dent did not appear to be so much tear-drop in shape which would have been caused by debris passing by at speed and then impacting the fuselage. Instead, it appears to be more of a right-angle dent.
Well - that's my $.02 worth...
The aluminum alloy used in almost every light airplane is 2024-T3. The most common thicknesses used are 0.020 in., 0.032 in., and in some aircraft, 0.040 in. As I was told by a licensed A&P who was rebuilding a crash damaged plane at the FBO I flew out of, typically these panels are formed to their bucks at the factory and then annealed to the proper temper. They can take a lot of abuse as they are hardened to withstand a degree of impact without catastrophic damage.
It is very difficult to tell how or what might have damaged this aircraft (looks like Cessna 210), but the proximity of the dent to the landing gear suggests that it could well have been damaged by a rock being kicked up off of the main gear?
I am suspicious of the damage being done by a drone for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that the dent did not appear to be so much tear-drop in shape which would have been caused by debris passing by at speed and then impacting the fuselage. Instead, it appears to be more of a right-angle dent.
Well - that's my $.02 worth...
No it wasn’t.
The physical cause was damage to Columbia's left wing by a 1.7 pound piece of insulating foam that detached from the left “bipod ramp” that connects the External Tank1 to the orbiter, and struck the orbiter's left wing 81.9 seconds after launch.
I fly up to 400 foot all the time, its not feasible to fly less checking out my property!
Earthman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2018
- Messages
- 109
- Reactions
- 76
At the 100mph plus the two aircraft hit, I don’t doubt that a small USV could make such a dent in the thin aluminum skin of a light aircraft. It would have made a bigger dent if the UAV hit squarely on the leading edge of a wing or it might penetrate or crack the plastic windshield.
If not a UAV, what else might it be at nearly 2,000ft AGL? It’s reasonable to assume it was a UAV.
Airmark1
Active Member
Drone vs plane testing from a while back.
Here is a video that’s somewhat related. YES the above mentioned plane+drone wasn’t traveling at 240 MPH. And yes, it’s a fairly big drone in the video. Settle down. I’m not saying that drones are misiles. But I am saying that drones can indeed do damage.
Those plastic drones do usually have beefy, dense batteries in them.
The drone damage does seem a little far fetched, but I guess plausible.
If it was a drone, it is lucky it didn’t go through the windscreen.
Here is a video that’s somewhat related. YES the above mentioned plane+drone wasn’t traveling at 240 MPH. And yes, it’s a fairly big drone in the video. Settle down. I’m not saying that drones are misiles. But I am saying that drones can indeed do damage.
Those plastic drones do usually have beefy, dense batteries in them.
The drone damage does seem a little far fetched, but I guess plausible.
If it was a drone, it is lucky it didn’t go through the windscreen.
Wow, that'd be small mass of material & easily breaking material... unless frozen with impregnated water mass... then it'd be more ice debris than Styrofoam. The Styrofoam has much less energy, poristy and bonding strength... considering the strength & composition of the tiles of a shuttle. Wasn't the design of the tiles to to defect small high speed particles in space even during high heat of reentry? More tiles were lost due to adhesion and air flow underneath than broken due to impacts. Similar to debris on highway, lighter material won't contact... it deflects in airflow.
Understandably the speed of the shuttle and the flow of air would also be a factor, still would assume would trap the Styrofoam in airflow at that speed.
That'd be an interesting read of the dynamics involved. You don't happen have reference to the resource or article?
Regarding the Cesena, I'd agree a side impact of that energy would be tough when considering the speed of the two vectors... aircraft forward speed... 80+ mph, drone speed 30 mph?, drag, and weight/mass attempting to overcome airflow deflection & penatrate the reward air flow velocity of both plane and prop thrust in that section of aircraft.
I'd assume much smaller dense mass impacted. They indicated hearing & feeling a large thud... rules out bird too... aren't enough mass to cause that dent.
Every drone test reference I've seen has been static aircraft and accelerated drone at a head on trajectory... to simulate opposing vectors on same plane (path). Even those aren't truly accurate when considering all the dynamics.
Although, out of my scope or knowledge to say without more facts. Possible for drone, yep... this scenario... hmmm?
Last edited:
Clearly you’ve not read the reports, seen the documentary or observed the tests that proved, at speed, a piece of the external insulating foam can punch a hole straight through the carbon carbon leading edge of the Shuttle.
Ray Dunakin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
- Messages
- 269
- Reactions
- 284
That video is misleading, because the plane is stationary. In flight it would be traveling at high speed.
There are not only mavic around. A 5" FPV drone has carbon fiber frame and with a gopro and a big battery can be nearly 1Kg. It can reach that altitude in few seconds and of course can make such a damage or much much worse. I feel that FPV pilots are on average much more careful to avoid these things compare to mavic pilots because they know the have a weapon but never know...
Easy on the compliments... did you read aggression in my post... if so you're reading skills should be questioned.
If ya have a reference, I'd enjoy reading it... and I'm sure it's content may provide additional data other than your statement.
I'm decently equipped to handle aerodynamics and math... and no, documentaries aren't always factual in presented material... often leaving out primary data. Based on your above post... referencing 1.7lb piece, that material isn't what we consider normal "Styrofoam", the density and composition is different.
Last edited:
So the authorities will try to find and arrest the drone pilot right, if it was indeed a drone that caused the damage?
kamviclance
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 49
- Reactions
- 34
Picture of what damage a drone can do! Well, maybe a military drone...but a drone non the less.
Guess it's all in how you do the reporting.
Seriously though, We will never know what caused this "incident"..... good chance it was a hobbyist drone,
all things considered though, this is just a reminder to us all to fly safe and responsible (all of the time).
Cheers
lance
Guess it's all in how you do the reporting.
Seriously though, We will never know what caused this "incident"..... good chance it was a hobbyist drone,
all things considered though, this is just a reminder to us all to fly safe and responsible (all of the time).
Cheers
lance
Attachments
So no drone seen. The broadcast says it is a drone like it is a fact. My question, would the airplane pilot admit to flying too low if they were flying around 120 m.I just saw this in a news item on the national news on the RTL4 network in the Netherlands.
2 people flew in a Cessna plane at 600 M high.
They reported a loud bang and a Apache helicopter from a nearby base flew by the plane to check for damage. All 3 wheels were still oke and the plane landed.
After the landing a large dent was found in the fuselage on the side of the plane just behind the engine (prop not jet). The dent was a narrow gash about 5 cm long and about 1 cm wide and the paint was gone.
What I find very strange and even suspicious that this damage can be done by a drone hitting the plan from the side when the speed can't be that fast to cause this amount of damage.
My question is to you: what is your instinct about this?
Ruud
Enclosed a report by the dutch police about this.
Snellinks
Ga naar contentGa naar hoofdmenu
Bij spoed: 112 Geen spoed: 0900-8844
Ga naar hoofdmenuHoofdnavigatie
Sportvliegtuig botst vermoedelijk met drone
Laatste update:07-11-2020 | 13:16Woordvoering:Landelijke Eenheid
Eindhoven - Op vrijdagmiddag 6 november moest een sportvliegtuig halsoverkop terugkeren naar Eindhoven Airport na een botsing met hoogstwaarschijnlijk een drone. Niemand raakte gewond, maar er ontstond wel schade aan het vliegtuig.
Omstreeks 14.45 uur vlogen twee personen op ongeveer 600 meter hoogte in het sportvliegtuig. Ter hoogte van de plaatsen Aalst en Veen, in de buurt van het recreatiegebied de Neswaarden, hoorden de vliegers een harde klap en voelden dat iets tegen het vliegtuig was gebotst. De vliegers besloten direct terug te keren naar de Eindhoven Airport. Daar vroeg de piloot aan de luchtverkeersleiding om het landingsgestel op schade te inspecteren door langs de toren te vliegen. Hierop heeft de luchtverkeersleiding een in de buurt vliegende Apache helikopter van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht gevraagd om de inspectie vanuit de lucht uit te voeren. Er zijn geen beschadigingen aan het landingsgestel waargenomen en is een voorzorgslanding gemaakt die verder goed verliep. Er is een deuk geconstateerd aan de neus van het toestel en schade aan de propeller, waarschijnlijk veroorzaakt door een drone. Sporenonderzoek door het team Luchtvaarttoezicht van de Landelijke Eenheid sluit uit dat de schade is veroorzaakt door een botsing met een vogel.
Gevaar
De politie zoekt getuigen en wil de dronebestuurder graag spreken. Verder wijst de politie op de gevaren die kunnen ontstaan als dronevliegers zich niet aan de regels houden. Er is een limiet ingesteld van 120 meter hoogte voor drones. Daarnaast moeten ze in het zicht van de vlieger blijven.
Mike Mas
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I think this is an insurance job, he ran into something on the runway and blamed it on a drone - just what we need more negative publicity. The damage and its location just does not add up to a drone strike.
Regards
Regards
PTBperegrine
Well-Known Member
The possible damage from a drone impact has only been demonstrated with head on/leading edge trials. The side of the fuselage normally would be an unlikely damage spot. The location behind an engine suggests that SOMETHING could have been caught by the prop wash and thrown at the fuselage... Interesting! ?
I think some people are forgetting that the speed of a Mavic pro drone hitting a Cessna is about 170 to 200 mph (270-320 kph) with a very hard battery weighing about 10.5 oz (300 grams), about twice the weight of a hardball. The battery is the dangerous part and is a lot worse than a bird strike.
I know , but planes aren't made of porcelain either . If I thought any plane couldn't survive impacting a 500g piece of plastic I'd never again get on a plane.
The reference I quoted was directly from NASA’s own history department as was the footage used in the factual documentary.
Enjoy the read.
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
RC-N2 vs RC-2 controller for quickly taking photos into iPhone for inspections
- Started by zimm
- Replies: 2
-
-
Forum statistics
