Drone vs. aircraft wing testing

[sar104]

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...

You should abandon that rule. We're wrong most of the time anyway - at least I hear that's what people are saying™.

 

[ac0j]

I am sure it took a few try’s to get the result published. I imagine there were a few glancing blows before they hit the sweet spot.
I will repeat what I have said in similar threads. I don’t know if a drone pilot could collide with an aircraft even if they wanted to.
That would take timing and skill.

 

[WithTheBirds]

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.

Imaginary ifs? I was responding to your comment "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". Im am stating the obvious. Cheap currently available drones are more than capable of being flown where they might interfere with manned AC operations and any donkey can fly one. To suggest the chance of a collision is almost zero is ridiculous and short sighted. Unfortunately it is probably a question of when not if.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I am sure it took a few try’s to get the result published. I imagine there were a few glancing blows before they hit the sweet spot.
I will repeat what I have said in similar threads. I don’t know if a drone pilot could collide with an aircraft even if they wanted to.
That would take timing and skill.

Even if they didn't want to the if they did part has the same unfortunate outcome eh.

 

[KennyJr]

How many Mooneys are flying is completely irrelevant - this is a study of the effect of impact, not the probability of impact.

Yes and I'm sure the Insurance Institute is still crash testing Model A's. The chances of me crashing into one is almost zero. I've never seen one outside of antique car shows.

 

[sar104]

I am sure it took a few try’s to get the result published. I imagine there were a few glancing blows before they hit the sweet spot.
I will repeat what I have said in similar threads. I don’t know if a drone pilot could collide with an aircraft even if they wanted to.
That would take timing and skill.

I'd be extremely surprised if it took more than one shot. That is a very simple test to align and execute.

 

[lmel2005]

Imaginary ifs? I was responding to your comment "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". Im am stating the obvious. Cheap currently available drones are more than capable of being flown where they might interfere with manned AC operations and any donkey can fly one. To suggest the chance of a collision is almost zero is ridiculous and short sighted. Unfortunately it is probably a question of when not if.

No, I'm not suggesting.
My 'ridiculous ' conclusion of almost zero, comes from facts and real life statistics.

Discussion about future 'when' or 'if' is difficult, specially if it's not based on facts of today.

Drones for now are safe enough and fortunately they don't collide with manned aircrafts.

 

[sar104]

Drones for now are safe enough and fortunately they don't collide with manned aircrafts.

Except when they do.

 

[JDawg]

No, I'm not suggesting.
My 'ridiculous ' conclusion of almost zero, comes from facts and real life statistics.

Discussion about future 'when' or 'if' is difficult, specially if it's not based on facts of today.

Drones for now are safe enough and fortunately they don't collide with manned aircrafts.

Phantom?

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

 

[sar104]

Phantom?

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

It's not a bad animation, especially with respect to the impact damage. Not a Phantom - it looks like an S1000 octocopter. The biggest problem is the impact speed, which is around 50 mph based on the dimensions of the S1000 and the 24 fps frame rate. The frame-by-frame motion of the drone is also unsteady, and the relative size increases incorrectly as it approaches the wing.

 

[JDawg]

It's not a bad animation, especially with respect to the impact damage. Not a Phantom - it looks like an S1000 octocopter. The biggest problem is the impact speed, which is around 50 mph based on the dimensions of the S1000 and the 24 fps frame rate. The frame-by-frame motion of the drone is also unsteady, and the relative size increases incorrectly as it approaches the wing.

LOL so I was duped. I need to observe my own rules.

 

[sar104]

More proof it can't happen? Virgin plane in terrifying near miss with drone on Heathrow approach

I opened another thread with that one - a combination of the reported event and the Sun headline was too good to pass up.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I opened another thread with that one - a combination of the reported event and the Sun headline was too good to pass up.

Didn't see it- removed my post.

Im hoping the almost certainly can't happen contingent takes the time to read it.

Apparent ignorance combined with an entitlement mentality might just be (and I fear probably is) a terrifying combination.

 

[lmel2005]

Except when they do.

Statistically, they don't.

 

[lmel2005]

Phantom?

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

Spark? (Just a joke)

 

[WithTheBirds]

Statistically, they don't.

Statistically they haven't- we know they can so to say statistically they won't would be ridiculous.

 

[lmel2005]

Statistically they haven't- we know they can so to say statistically they won't would be ridiculous.

Did I say they won't?

Do you think that airplanes are safe to travel with? Safer than cars?

 

[WithTheBirds]

Did I say they won't?

Do you think that airplanes are safe to travel with? Safer than cars?

On a per trip basis between destinations air travel does seem to be statistically safer. And no, you didn’t say they wont, you suggested the likliehood was close to zero.

 

[sar104]

Statistically, they don't.

Please learn the meaning of words before you use them, or misuse them, in this case. Contrary to your assertion above, collisions have occurred. Statistically they may be infrequent, or uncommon, but the statement "statistically they don't" is not only incorrect in this case but also not a correct use of "statistically".

 

[lmel2005]

On a per trip basis between destinations air travel does seem to be statistically safer. And no, you didn’t say they wont, you suggested the likliehood was close to zero.

I agree.

Statistically, airplane is the safest way to travel, even if there are some airplane crashes every year, and hundreds of dead people.

And this statistical conclusion, is a MEASUREMENT, of facts until now.

Well, measuring drone-aircraft collisions until now, and aircraft crashes due to drone collision, I can say safely (and again), that probability of a collision is SMALL, and aircraft crash because of drones ALMOST ZERO.

That's for now. With current technology, current number of drones, planes and other flying machines, even with current regulations and restrictions.
What will happen tomorrow? I can't tell, I just hope for the best.

Ridiculous (for you) or not, that's real life.