Drone vs. aircraft wing testing

[ac0j]

The Phantom did significantly more structural damage. Whether or not it would have resulted in a crash is secondary to the simple observation of the damage. Would you be comfortable with your situation on that aircraft after such a collision?

I don't understand the attitudes on display here. Ever since the threat of drone strikes on engines, wings, control surfaces etc. became a discussion topic there was incessant whining that it was pointless to worry about it without some actual testing. So now we have some carefully conducted testing and the response, from the same people, most of whom are clearly completely unqualified to comment on the technical merit of the work, is basically to shout "fake news"?

If an aircraft in this scenario crashed then the outcome is clearly catastrophic. Even if the aircraft lands safely, the damage is still extremely expensive to fix. Neither outcome is sufficiently acceptable that we should not worry about it. That the probability of collision is low doesn't change the validity of the tests, which are attempting to answer the question - "if a collision occurs, what is the damage?".

Its possible for a meteor to strike an aircraft. It is possible for a football to strike an aircraft....
No one is saying it is impossible, or it wont cause damage.
What the point is, it MIGHT cause the damage shown here, or average damage about the same damage as the thousands of bird strikes that happen each year. It is so unlikely to happen more than a couple times a decade. it seems like it should be less of an issue than muffed structural inspection, or maintenance that cause nearly all of aviation disasters. I can only recall ONE confirmed collision, it caused minor (I didnt say cheap) damage to a military helicopter. It hit in probably the worst possible place. No mass destruction, other than the drone.
Any pilot that has a collision with a drone should buy lottery tickets, because the odds have to be similar.

 

[ac0j]

I used reverse logic. Given the dimensions of the Phantom and the measured speed of 238 mph (106 m/s), that leads to a calculated frame rate of almost exactly 10,000 frames per second. As a regular user of those cameras, I can tell you that 10e4 fps is a common frame rate (the frame rate is set in the software via a dropdown menu), so that is entirely plausible.

normal motion picture framerate is 25? frames per second i think, At the normal speed in the beginning of the clip, the entire event including any of the larger flying debris is NOT visible, not even a hint of the white plastic disappearing into the hole. The entire collision, and the flying parts shown later in the slow motion, ALL happened between two of those 25 frames we see.For all I know it could have happened two times between those same two frames. Just seems way faster than 350 feet per second. I wish I could count the frames where the phantom is visible. Probably a reason they didnt give us a frame at a time view. BUT, the video was made for a presentation for a UAS conference or something like that. Wouldnt have had the same visual impact if it would have hit a couple inches higher on the wing and just deflected away leaving a dent, or scrape.

 

[Goof]

normal motion picture framerate is 25? frames per second i think, At the normal speed in the beginning of the clip, the entire event including any of the larger flying debris is NOT visible, not even a hint of the white plastic disappearing into the hole. The entire collision, and the flying parts shown later in the slow motion, ALL happened between two of those 25 frames we see.For all I know it could have happened two times between those same two frames. Just seems way faster than 350 feet per second. I wish I could count the frames where the phantom is visible. Probably a reason they didnt give us a frame at a time view. BUT, the video was made for a presentation for a UAS conference or something like that. Wouldnt have had the same visual impact if it would have hit a couple inches higher on the wing and just deflected away leaving a dent, or scrape.

350'/s is 14' per frame (@25 frames per second), much, much further than what the FoV of the camera is viewing. The phantom appearing for only a frame (or not at all) is perfectly consistent with the reported speeds.

You seem to be going out of your way to arrive at a "well it feels wrong, despite what the numbers say, so there must be an ulterior motive to the video" conclusion...

"If a drone hits an older aircraft's wing at 238MPH, it'll probably look like this" is the point of the video.

 

[lmel2005]

Everyone who pays for these experiments, and who spreads these videos, is aiming to DJI, as DJI is the leading company in drone market.

Most of people, when seeing this video, think "wow! Drones are very dangerous! They can crash down an airplane!".
And if some of them had ever fly a drone, or thought of buying one, they automatically think "wasn't it a DJI phantom?".

As some friends above said, probability is the key.
Drones don't fly in the same airspace with manned aircrafts, so the probability of a collision is very VERY small.
Even if someone ("idiot" as many members here use to say) flies a drone high enough, the probability of a manned aircraft crash, is almost ZERO.

I'm sure, we will see videos of DJI drones falling on satellites, or even on the international space station. I'm sure the results of the simulations will be catastrophic.

All this reminds me the videos of iPhones, crashing from 10000m, braking them with hammer or with trucks, and burning them with flaming weapons. The conclusion of the ignorant was "iPhone is not durable enough, and it is dangerous".

 

[WithTheBirds]

Everyone who pays for these experiments, and who spreads these videos, is aiming to DJI, as DJI is the leading company in drone market.

Most of people, when seeing this video, think "wow! Drones are very dangerous! They can crash down an airplane!".
And if some of them had ever fly a drone, or thought of buying one, they automatically think "wasn't it a DJI phantom?".

As some friends above said, probability is the key.
Drones don't fly in the same airspace with manned aircrafts, so the probability of a collision is very VERY small.
Even if someone ("idiot" as many members here use to say) flies a drone high enough, the probability of a manned aircraft crash, is almost ZERO.

I'm sure, we will see videos of DJI drones falling on satellites, or even on the international space station. I'm sure the results of the simulations will be catastrophic.

All this reminds me the videos of iPhones, crashing from 10000m, braking them with hammer or with trucks, and burning them with flaming weapons. The conclusion of the ignorant was "iPhone is not durable enough, and it is dangerous".

I suspect most would see this as UAV vs Manned AC wing, there are more phantoms in the air so why not use it to demonstrate what a typical collision might look like. I think it’s foolish to rely on improbability to water down the potential dangers- current hobbyist UAV are more than capable of being flown where manned AC operate. Anything that heightens awareness is good

 

[lmel2005]

I suspect most would see this as UAV vs Manned AC wing, there are more phantoms in the air so why not use it to demonstrate what a typical collision might look like. I think it’s foolish to rely on improbability to water down the potential dangers- current hobbyist UAV are more than capable of being flown where manned AC operate. Anything that heightens awareness is good

I will not argue about what everyone thinks, seeing the video. I said my opinion and it's obvious TO ME.
Google this experiment, and just look at press titles. You'll understand.

I agree, that measuring the danger, is not bad.
But it's not bad too, to know who's paying and why.

Yes, some drone users are capable to fly high. So what? Possibility of collision is too small.
Possibility of airplane crash is even smaller, close to absolute zero.

If real life statistics show something different, I will change my opinion.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I will not argue about what everyone thinks, seeing the video. I said my opinion and it's obvious TO ME.
Google this experiment, and just look at press titles. You'll understand.

I agree, that measuring the danger, is not bad.
But it's not bad too, to know who's paying and why.

Yes, some drone users are capable to fly high. So what? Possibility of collision is too small.
Possibility of airplane crash is even smaller, close to absolute zero.

If real life statistics show something different, I will change my opinion.

If all UAV operators proceeded on the close to zero assumption and flew as high as they felt like what do you think the statistics might look like?

One thing you can be close to certain of- no enterprise with a current or expected future commercial interest in selling hobby grade UAV's would have commissioned this test. That would be stupid for obvious reasons.

 

[KennyJr]

I want to come at this from a different angle. I do not doubt the results in the video. My question is, what percentage of aircraft flying are Mooney M20s. I'm not an aviation buff, but I've never heard of a Mooney.

To put this in perspective if someone asked me to conduct a survey and find a particular result I could do so by manipulating the survey. I could change the question, target only specific age groups, genders, political affiliations ,etc. to get the results I want.

If Mooneys represent only 0.0001% of the planes then the chance of a strike is slim. If the Mooney represents 20% then a collision is more likely. How does the structural strength of the Mooneys wing compare to other aircraft? What would happen if that same drone was fired at a passenger jet wing?

So if someone came to me and said I want a video of a drone destroying a wing I'd pick the aircraft with the weakest wing against the strongest drone.

 

[newt2u]

It makes zero difference whether or not the drone or the wing is moving, all that matters is their relative speeds.

No it does make a difference. If the wing is moving it is generating lift, which would tend to suck a projectile over the wing.

 

[lmel2005]

If all UAV operators proceeded on the close to zero assumption and flew as high as they felt like what do you think the statistics might look like?

One thing you can be close to certain of- no enterprise with a current or expected future commercial interest in selling hobby grade UAV's would have commissioned this test. That would be stupid for obvious reasons.

IF all drone users, did something, I don't know because simply THEY DON'T.
And certainly we cannot discuss imaginary IFs.

And I don't know who ordered the test. But it would be interesting to know who was, and his motives.
The fact is that someone ordered, and probably paid for it.

 

[Goof]

No it does make a difference. If the wing is moving it is generating lift, which would tend to suck a projectile over the wing.

There were nearly 100,000 recorded bird strikes between 1998 and 2008. If the airflow in these cases couldn't deflect a bird, I doubt it's going to deflect a drone...

 

[Simmo]

There were nearly 100,000 recorded bird strikes between 1998 and 2008. If the airflow in these cases couldn't deflect a bird, I doubt it's going to deflect a drone...

How many of those crashed? Resulting in loss of life??

 

[Goof]

How many of those crashed? Resulting in loss of life??

Something like 10 incidents, 16 fatalities.

Paper was Dolbeer, 2009 I think.

 

[sar104]

No it does make a difference. If the wing is moving it is generating lift, which would tend to suck a projectile over the wing.

Why do people post total nonsense like this on subjects that they know nothing about?

 

[sar104]

I want to come at this from a different angle. I do not doubt the results in the video. My question is, what percentage of aircraft flying are Mooney M20s. I'm not an aviation buff, but I've never heard of a Mooney.

To put this in perspective if someone asked me to conduct a survey and find a particular result I could do so by manipulating the survey. I could change the question, target only specific age groups, genders, political affiliations ,etc. to get the results I want.

If Mooneys represent only 0.0001% of the planes then the chance of a strike is slim. If the Mooney represents 20% then a collision is more likely. How does the structural strength of the Mooneys wing compare to other aircraft? What would happen if that same drone was fired at a passenger jet wing?

So if someone came to me and said I want a video of a drone destroying a wing I'd pick the aircraft with the weakest wing against the strongest drone.

That's certainly a different angle, and you certainly are not an aviation buff. So because you have never heard of a Mooney ( nor Google either, presumably), you suspect what - that they are entirely unrepresentative of light, general aviation aircraft?

I suspect that the Dayton Impact group did these two tests to demonstrate the capability in order to attract funding for a larger study - that would be fairly standard practice. So they started with a very representative UAV, a readily available general aviation wing, and the upper end of the impact velocity range of interest.

 

[KennyJr]

So because you have never heard of a Mooney ( nor Google either, presumably), you suspect what - that they are entirely unrepresentative of light, general aviation aircraft?

I suspect nothing. I don't know, hence my questions. The reasons for those questions is because I've been around enough to know surveys and studies can be done in such a way to support whatever result you want.

 

[sar104]

I suspect nothing. I don't know, hence my questions. The reasons for those questions is because I've been around enough to know surveys and studies can be done in such a way to support whatever result you want.

Your post quite clearly implied that you suspected that the study had been manipulated by choosing unrepresentative components, apparently on the basis that you assumed that someone funded them to show a drone destroying a wing. Because that's what you would have done.

 

[KennyJr]

Your post quite clearly implied that you suspected that the study had been manipulated by choosing unrepresentative components, apparently on the basis that you assumed that someone funded them to show a drone destroying a wing. Because that's what you would have done.

I see I'm wasting my breath. As I clearly stated, I do not know hence the questions. Without knowing the structural strength of the Mooney wing verses other small aircraft or how many fly it compared to other models I haven't enough information to form an opinion.

 

[sar104]

I see I'm wasting my breath. As I clearly stated, I do not know hence the questions. Without knowing the structural strength of the Mooney wing verses other small aircraft or how many fly it compared to other models I haven't enough information to form an opinion.

How many Mooneys are flying is completely irrelevant - this is a study of the effect of impact, not the probability of impact. As for the structural characteristics, I suggest that you contact Mooney, and every other airframe manufacturer, and request detailed engineering drawings and failure test results. Obviously there is no way for you to make any sense of these impact tests without those critical data.

 

[JDawg]

My rule is I never debate with Physicists about physics or much else. I have worked with a physicist for 34 years and I established this rule 33 years ago...