Drone damage to airplanes?

[JY-tek]

Just wondering if there has ever been any testing or studies to determine the damage a drone can cause to an airplane, small and large. What would the damage be if a drone hits a plane (or plane hits the drone)? I image the prop could take the hit without serious damage?? But what else could be damaged? Also, with jet engines, could it ingest a drone??
I'm not arguing, just wondering.....

 

[Porky]

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

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Probably the closing thing the FAA has done with respect to the impact of a drone strike would be the impact of bird strikes. They've taken birds of various sizes and allowed them to be ingested by an engine to see what type of damage is done.

 

[sar104]

Just wondering if there has ever been any testing or studies to determine the damage a drone can cause to an airplane, small and large. What would the damage be if a drone hits a plane (or plane hits the drone)? I image the prop could take the hit without serious damage?? But what else could be damaged? Also, with jet engines, could it ingest a drone??
I'm not arguing, just wondering.....

A prop might survive but would almost certainly need to be replaced. A Phantom struck the rotor of a UH-60 Black Hawk over New York Harbor causing rotor damage, and those aircraft are designed to take some punishment. Airliner windshields would be cracked but are generally assumed to survive intact. GA windshields would almost certainly fail. Airframe components will be damaged, possibly seriously, as shown in the video linked above. There has been very little engine ingestion testing so far; numerical modeling has indicated that there will likely be fan damage may be engine shutdown, but that's not really definitive. What one can say is that engines were designed to be somewhat resistant to bird strikes, but not the more rigid-structure impacts that drones present.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

A prop might survive but would almost certainly need to be replaced. A Phantom struck the rotor of a UH-60 Black Hawk over New York Harbor causing rotor damage, and those aircraft are designed to take some punishment. Airliner windshields would be cracked but are generally assumed to survive intact. GA windshields would almost certainly fail. Airframe components will be damaged, possibly seriously, as shown in the video linked above. There has been very little engine ingestion testing so far; numerical modeling has indicated that there will likely be fan damage may be engine shutdown, but that's not really definitive. What one can say is that engines were designed to be somewhat resistant to bird strikes, but not the more rigid-structure impacts that drones present.

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.

 

[brett8883]

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

There’s two sides to every story and DJI has formally and publicly accused the University of sham science when conducting their “test” and has demanded a retraction of that video and more transparency to their testing methodology.

Bacically their assertion is that the University used testing speeds that exceed the maximum speed that surpass the maximum velocity of both the aircraft in question and the drone combined. DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video

They basically accuse they University of being frauds. DJI claims that the test was conducted outside the FAA guidelines for such a test. They go on to point out that the University admits that when conducting the same test to simulate the damage of a bird strike that the “damage was more apparent,” however, the University has only publicized the video showing the drone crash.

I don’t have any knowledge of this aircraft nor the physics involved but DJI makes some good arguments that if the University wanted to conduct an actual scientific test they would have conducted the test under realistic circumstances and published the testing methodology. In other words this is fake news.

 

[Kilrah]

The lengths people will go to for a bit of PR...

 

[Porky]

There’s two sides to every story and DJI has formally and publicly accused the University of sham science when conducting their “test” and has demanded a retraction of that video and more transparency to their testing methodology.

Bacically their assertion is that the University used testing speeds that exceed the maximum speed that surpass the maximum velocity of both the aircraft in question and the drone combined. DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video

They basically accuse they University of being frauds.

I don’t have any knowledge of this aircraft nor the physics involved but DJI makes some good arguments that if the University wanted to conduct an actual scientific test they would have conducted the test under realistic circumstances and published the testing methodology. In other words this is fake news.

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

 

[brett8883]

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

No that wasn’t aimed at you @Porky but I thought it was necessary to point out that the video was controversial and not scientific. One would have hoped CNBC would have done this but when “news organizations” refuse to do their job somebody has to step up and do it for them.

 

[sar104]

No that wasn’t aimed at you @Porky but I thought it was necessary to point out that the video was controversial and not scientific. One would have hoped CNBC would have done this but when “news organizations” refuse to do their job somebody has to step up and do it for them.

And yet you are asserting, with no evidence beyond DJI’s complaint which was riddled with factual errors and clearly not unbiased, that the study was unscientific?

 

[JY-tek]

I think I have finally reached the point that I am skeptical (don't believe) anything that I read or hear in published news. Everybody portrays information in a way that supports their purpose. I don't think there is anywhere to get unbiased news. Major news sources have turned into "news shows" and could care less about "the whole picture". I remember, back in the cold war days, of hearing how the Soviet citizens just don't believe their news sources because they knew it was propaganda. Now, we're in that same place......

Sorry for the rant. I don't usually, but this is a topic that hits me wrong..

 

[brett8883]

And yet you are asserting, with no evidence beyond DJI’s complaint which was riddled with factual errors and clearly not unbiased, that the study was unscientific?

I was reporting on the claims made by DJI and at the end I made clear that I myself have no knowledge of the aircraft in question or the physics involved.

 

[brettbrandon]

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

Skip to 7:20 in the video for a reality check on that video...

 

[BigAl07]

Skip to 7:20 in the video for a reality check on that video...

It all depends on the area of impact (on the wing) the angle of impact, and which portion of the sUAS strikes the aircraft.

I'll be brutally honest here.... how could anyone just simply dismiss the video of a "Phantom Like" aircraft penetrating the wing skin like that? Yes they simulated a direct full-on strike and probably on a less rigid portion of the wing but why would you NOT test Worse Case Scenario?

The "Evidence" that the YT showed of the Canadian aircraft is bull... they don't know which drone hit it, what angle it hit it, or which portion of the drone hit it. It could have simply been the soft plastic undercarriage that "Scuffed" the aircraft wing.....

 

[brett8883]

Mostly on topic I found this video compilation of bird strikes on airplanes that I found fascinating.

Warning: this video contains graphic content of birds meeting their end. Some viewers that are sensitive, especially bird lovers may prefer not to view this video. As John Oliver would say... OPOSSUM!!!

 

[brett8883]

It all depends on the area of impact (on the wing) the angle of impact, and which portion of the sUAS strikes the aircraft.

I'll be brutally honest here.... how could anyone just simply dismiss the video of a "Phantom Like" aircraft penetrating the wing skin like that? Yes they simulated a direct full-on strike and probably on a less rigid portion of the wing but why would you NOT test Worse Case Scenario?

The "Evidence" that the YT showed of the Canadian aircraft is bull... they don't know which drone hit it, what angle it hit it, or which portion of the drone hit it. It could have simply been the soft plastic undercarriage that "Scuffed" the aircraft wing.....

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 used
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.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

While we can question the motivations and selective reporting of those addressing this issue I think we can all agree that two objects in flight colliding with one another is a bad thing. If ingesting a flesh and bone 4 lb bird (I believe the FAA began seeing engine shutdowns when the birds reached that weight) can do serious damage to a jet engine I'm guessing a drone made of hard plastic, assorted metals and other hard stuff could also do some significant damage. The damage may not cost lives but any repair work done on an airplane is VERY expensive, probably many, many times more than the cost of the drone.

 

[brett8883]

While we can question the motivations and selective reporting of those addressing this issue I think we can all agree that two objects in flight colliding with one another is a bad thing. If ingesting a flesh and bone 4 lb bird (I believe the FAA began seeing engine shutdowns when the birds reached that weight) can do serious damage to a jet engine I'm guessing a drone made of hard plastic, assorted metals and other hard stuff could also do some significant damage. The damage may not cost lives but any repair work done on an airplane is VERY expensive, probably many, many times more than the cost of the drone.

No doubt

 

[WithTheBirds]

I was reporting on the claims made by DJI and at the end I made clear that I myself have no knowledge of the aircraft in question or the physics involved.

The way your post read it seemed you were suggesting DJI made good points and the subject test was fake news. The more likely reality is an act of desperation from DJI to try and keep the findings out of the public arena.

 

[N2084V]

Just wondering if there has ever been any testing or studies to determine the damage a drone can cause to an airplane, small and large. What would the damage be if a drone hits a plane (or plane hits the drone)? I image the prop could take the hit without serious damage?? But what else could be damaged? Also, with jet engines, could it ingest a drone??
I'm not arguing, just wondering.....