Drone damage to airplanes?

[Cymruflyer]

I think it’s as much what they don’t show as what they do show. According to the original “blog” Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio
by the University the purpose of the test was “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft, Poormon said. The drone and gel bird were the same weight and were launched at rates designed to reflect the relative combined speed of a fully intact drone traveling toward a commercial transport aircraft moving at a high approach speed”

The problem here is that they call the plane a “commercial transport aircraft” however they never show the aircraft that they used just the wing which looks like the wing of a commercial jet. However, this is the aircraft they usedView attachment 74608
Now does that look like a “commercial transport aircraft” to anybody?

Also, it their stated purpose was to “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike” then it was extremely conspicuous that they did not release the video of the bird strike ? .

They did however describe the bird strike. “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do.”

I guess they figured that showing the video of the bird strike next to the video of the drone strike would make the bird strike look worse and decided not to show that and potentially disprove their own point.

The only thing they proved was that under similar situations a drone strike does similar damage to a bird strike and have misrepresented their methodology and findings as well as suppressed evidence contrary to their hypothesis.

We need to know what speed was used to propel the drone at the wing to understand if this was a true case of possible collision or not. If they were taking the cruise speed of a Mooney or a Jet transport aircraft, that would be far from reality. But an approach speed of either would be a possibility. Birds on the other hand do fly at extremely high altitudes from time to time. I recall Geese being recorded at extremely high altitudes. Most bird strikes occur on take off or landing with commercial aircraft, so the testing should be done at those speeds to reflect reality.

Also the photo you used clearly shows the copyright data of the photographer, and should not have been used without the prior written consent of the photographer, regardless of where you found it. I am assuming you did not contact the photographer prior to posting his image so you might want to take that law into consideration for future photo use. I am not trying to be nasty here, just letting you know for your own safety against a copyright court case one day.

 

[brett8883]

We need to know what speed was used to propel the drone at the wing to understand if this was a true case of possible collision or not. If they were taking the crusie speed of a Mooney or a Jet transport aircraft, that is far out of reality. But an approach speed of either would be a possibility. Birds on the other hand do fly at extremely high altitudes from time to time. I recall Canada Geese being recorded at extremely high altitudes. Most bird strikes occur on take off or landing with commercial aircraft, so the testing should be done at those speeds to reflect reality.

Also the photo you used clearly shows the copyright data of the photographer, and should not have been used without the prior written consent of the photographer, regardless of where you found it. I am assuming you did not contact the photographer prior to posting his image so you might want to take that law into consideration for future photo use. I am not trying to be nasty here, just letting you know for your own safety against a copyright court case one day.

I appreciate your concern but my use of the photo is clearly covered under Fair Use Doctrine More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

 

[BigAl07]

What you have to remember in these cases, is that some labs may not be playing fair, while other may. For example, if the drone can only reach a max. speed of 42MPH and the aircraft in question can only reach a max. straight and level speed of, for example 150MPH, then the testing should be done so that the wing is sped up to a combined speed of 192MPH when it impacts the hanging drone, or the drone is propelled at this same speed when it is shot at the stationary wing of the aircraft. If the lab decided to shoot the drone at the wing at a speed of 250MPH then of course the wing would sustain more damage. However, that would not be a real word happening and that resultant data would be extremely misleading, as well as incorrect.

The Mooney 201 (201mph) and Phantom 4 could meet and exceed that test speed:

P4P speed spec:
S-mode: 45 mph (72 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 246mph
A-mode: 36 mph (58 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 237mph
P-mode: 31 mph (50 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 232mph

Also several models of the Mooney can do more than the above noted 201 mph:

1970's M20K 231, so designated because its top speed was 231 miles per hour
P4P speed spec:
S-mode: 45 mph (72 kph) ~ Against Mooney M20K 23 1@ 231mph = 276mph
A-mode: 36 mph (58 kph) ~ Against MooneyM20K 231 @ 231mph = 267mph
P-mode: 31 mph (50 kph) ~ Against MooneyM20K 231 @ 231mph = 262mph

1980's M20K 252, appeared in early 1986 with a top speed of 252 miles per hour
P4P speed spec:
S-mode: 45 mph (72 kph) ~ Against Mooney M20K 252 @ 252mph = 298mph
A-mode: 36 mph (58 kph) ~ Against Mooney M20K 252 @ 252mph = 288mph
P-mode: 31 mph (50 kph) ~ Against Mooney M20K 252@ 252mph = 283mph

And more recently:
2016 M20 Acclaim Ultra -

• Cruise speed: 242 knots (278 mph)

P4P speed spec:
S-mode: 45 mph (72 kph) ~ Against Mooney 20 AU @ 278mph = 323mph
A-mode: 36 mph (58 kph) ~ Against Mooney 20 AU @ 278mph = 314mph
P-mode: 31 mph (50 kph) ~ Against Mooney 20 AU@ 278mph = 309mph

Keep in mind this is "focusing" on a Phantom aircraft but what about a M600, M210, Inspire, Yuneec Typhoon H.... these are all larger, potentially more weight and more speed which would probably equal more damage.

But I do agree that the potential for softer and less rigid strike areas is highly likely.

Also keep in mind that GA aircraft windshields are NOT impact rated. Here's a bird strike on the windshielf of a PA-32 Saratoga aircraft on approach into (FMY) Page Field in Ft. Myers, Fl .

 

[brett8883]

We need to know what speed was used to propel the drone at the wing to understand if this was a true case of possible collision or not. If they were taking the cruise speed of a Mooney or a Jet transport aircraft, that would be far from reality. But an approach speed of either would be a possibility. Birds on the other hand do fly at extremely high altitudes from time to time. I recall Geese being recorded at extremely high altitudes. Most bird strikes occur on take off or landing with commercial aircraft, so the testing should be done at those speeds to reflect reality.

Also the photo you used clearly shows the copyright data of the photographer, and should not have been used without the prior written consent of the photographer, regardless of where you found it. I am assuming you did not contact the photographer prior to posting his image so you might want to take that law into consideration for future photo use. I am not trying to be nasty here, just letting you know for your own safety against a copyright court case one day.

They did say it was 235 MPH.

 

[BigAl07]

Also here's one of a bird strike on a Canadian F-16 trainer aircraft (Combat rated aircraft) taking a bird ingestion into the engine nacelle. It forced an ejection of the occupants (2 failed relight attempts) and then the crash of the aircraft into a farm/field. For the record, the Instructor and student did everything Text Book perfect but there was no recovering from this one.

 

[BigAl07]

And while I love a good, intelligent, and deep debate this topic has been "thoroughly" hashed out several times. Here are a couple of links to our sister forum where it's been "Deeply" discussed just for some reference reading:

Drone vs. aircraft wing testing

In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the...

mavicpilots.com

Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video - DRONELIFE

Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video,,,,I know this story was shown early but breaking news Alert just came in saying they want this withdrawn Ummmmmmm wonder what goes on

phantompilots.com

 

[Amarand]

I've been taking the Part 107 training classes, and it's useful (even if you aren't looking at getting your Part 107 certificate) to learn about the various airspaces, how to read a sectional chart, how the LAANC charts and maximum heights work, requesting airspace clearances.... I know that helicopters can fly - in general - much lower than general aviation, but if you're flying VLOS (which you should, because it's the law), and are maintaining situational awareness (part of being a RPIC), know the area by checking a sectional chart, complying with NOTAMs (all of which you can do with a service like AirMap), and yielding to manned aircraft, there's never any reason for a drone strike. Ever. It doesn't make any sense for this to be even a thing.

Yes, it's nice to have FAA testing, to explain what happens when someone's reckless enough to not follow the rules, but it's probably better to just do what we all do before we start driving our cars: get a learner's permit, learn the rules, practice under supervision, take a test under supervision, then follow the rules.

I'm worried that the 5% of people who aren't following the rules are going to get the other 95% of us who do strictly follow the rules in a situation where there are more legal restrictions and red-tape.

 

[Bill combs]

Just found this on YT, there’s others vids on there that gives you an idea

that fake news piece that nbc did was beyond biased

 

[pmshop]

Some additional information on the drone strike and damage in NY Harbor incident...

Phantom Drone Strike in NY Harbor

Pilot didn't know about line of sight regulations and didn't know about the temporary flight restrictions.

And the Huey pilot dove instead of climbing.

 

[marcorasi1960]

Does anybody know what punishment that NY Harbor drone pilot got? Sounds as though he was really irresponsible...

 

[Porky]

that fake news piece that nbc did was beyond biased

I don’t suppose you read the whole thread then?

 

[CentralVAphoto]

In other words this is fake news.

Might want to ask the crew of that UH-60M that struck a DJI P4 how 'fake' they think that news is. Just because DJI is pissed, doesn't make the test irrelevant or 'fake news.' DJI's legal team focused on legal mumbo-jumbo that distracts from the main point. Sure, a Mooney M20 is unlikely to be going over 200 knots at sUAS altitudes. But a Piper Meridian/TBM 700 series or other small turboprop might easily be going that fast, if not on approach. The FAA has testing that looks at the most likely scenarios. That doesn't mean they believe that unlikely threats are OK. The eager beavers in Dayton may be guilty of a little embellishment and they certainly have an agenda, but their underlying point isn't invalid just because it's unpopular, or bad for business. And birds don't know any better than to fly around airplanes, while remote pilots definitely should. As someone who has seen a small 37-cent bolt-nut-washer combo take out a multi-million dollar fighter jet engine on an aircraft carrier deck, I have no doubt that my four pound Mavic Pro will create a problem for any manned aircraft it hits. Why anyone would seek to downplay the low-incidence/high-risk nature of this threat, is beyond me. News stories are rarely accurate to any great extent. That's not the same as made up, or fake.

 

[elsmeghead]

Just found this on YT, there’s others vids on there that gives you an idea

That video has been proven bullpats

 

[Porky]

That video has been proven bullpats

Apparently

 

[sar104]

That video has been proven bullpats

By whom?

 

[hoggdoc]

Just found this on YT, there’s others vids on there that gives you an idea

I can't remember where I read it but I believe this test as shown in the linked video have been discredited because of the methodology used.

 

[Porky]

I can't remember where I read it but I believe this test as shown in the linked video have been discredited because of the methodology used.

Have you read the whole thread, good discussions regarding the vid.

 

[Super Dave O]

Sorry if I’ve offended, it’s just something I came across while searching.

CNBC.....Fake news..

 

[hoggdoc]

I think it’s as much what they don’t show as what they do show. According to the original “blog” Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio
by the University the purpose of the test was “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft, Poormon said. The drone and gel bird were the same weight and were launched at rates designed to reflect the relative combined speed of a fully intact drone traveling toward a commercial transport aircraft moving at a high approach speed”

The problem here is that they call the plane a “commercial transport aircraft” however they never show the aircraft that they used just the wing which looks like the wing of a commercial jet. However, this is the aircraft they usedView attachment 74608
Now does that look like a “commercial transport aircraft” to anybody?

Also, it their stated purpose was to “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike” then it was extremely conspicuous that they did not release the video of the bird strike ? .

They did however describe the bird strike. “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do.”

I guess they figured that showing the video of the bird strike next to the video of the drone strike would make the bird strike look worse and decided not to show that and potentially disprove their own point.

The only thing they proved was that under similar situations a drone strike does similar damage to a bird strike and have misrepresented their methodology and findings as well as suppressed evidence contrary to their hypothesis.

To me the "real" point to all this is where are all the drone/plane strikes? We keep hearing about all these "sightings" most of which are questionable at best, but where is the evidence of actual aircraft damage by "drones" even when looking worldwide? Where is the evidence serious injury or death related to "drone, UAV, Multi-rotor, or RC Fixed wing" flight worldwide?

To me these are all reasonable questions to be asking!

The media and others with an agenda against RC model flight, who knows why, have in fact blown this totally out of proportion. Keep in mind they have been doing this while allowing over 300 hundred people to die on a commercial airplane that has been proven dangerous. Seriously!

 

[hoggdoc]

CNBC.....Fake news..

Always!