MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
If it hits a blade or gets sucked into an engine.....it can be just hovering...not moving at all and cause plenty of damage
Helicopter Flies Dangerously Close to Me.
- Thread starter bricman12
- Start date
The helicopter flying over the beach was not engaged in spraying operations. It may have been spraying earlier or later during the same flight, but it certainly wasn't spraying when it flew low over a white sand beach with people on it.
I'm glad you are interested in helping people with the rules, I agree safe, legal flying is important for pilots. That said, your understanding of the rules is not correct for the United States. This discussion may be better off in the rules and regulations section of the forum, but there are no restrictions of distance from towers in general. The 400 foot radius from a structure is mentioned in the regulations in regards to if you are flying Part 107 (not recreational) and you are within 400 feet of a structure the allowable height is 400 feet above the top of the structure. Outside of the 400 foot radius of the structure you must be 400 feet AGL. Flights under the recreational exception are limited to 400 feet AGL regardless of any structures.
Only when they are applying chemicals, as you can see in the video the copter was not applying chemicals.
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
If it hits a blade, it will be utterly destroyed and explode into dozens of pieces, while the blade, at worst, will get a minor dent but otherwise suffer no perceptible performance degradation:
Drone collides with US Army helicopter, puts 1.5” dent in rotor
Collision at 300 feet reveals limits of “trusting the app.”…
arstechnica.com
The general public has a misperception regarding the fragility of helicopter blades. They are solid, heavy, and very tough. Remember, they provide 100% of the lift as well as propulsion, so MUST be structurally very strong.
Wing on an airplane, where 100% of the lift is produced, are tissue paper by comparison.
If it hits a blade, it will be utterly destroyed and explode into dozens of pieces, while the blade, at worst, will get a minor dent but otherwise suffer no perceptible performance degradation:
Drone collides with US Army helicopter, puts 1.5” dent in rotor
Collision at 300 feet reveals limits of “trusting the app.”…
The general public has a misperception regarding the fragility of helicopter blades. They are solid, heavy, and very tough. Remember, they provide 100% of the lift as well as propulsion, so MUST be structurally very strong.
Wing on an airplane, where 100% of the lift is produced, are tissue paper by comparison.
Would the damaged blade shown in that article be left in service? I'm guessing it would not.
I would be removed and sent out for repair or overhaul depending on time in service.
They were replaced at a very small fee of $250K (taxpayer $$).
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
The very article you use to prove your point...shows just the opposite...it caused plenty of damage not just to the blade..which does effect its airworthiness but to the helicopter itself, requiring quite expensive repair.....It seems like your mind is made up...if you don't think what you, yourself presented shows the damage is real,, you should read it again and look at the picturesIf it hits a blade, it will be utterly destroyed and explode into dozens of pieces, while the blade, at worst, will get a minor dent but otherwise suffer no perceptible performance degradation:
Drone collides with US Army helicopter, puts 1.5” dent in rotor
Collision at 300 feet reveals limits of “trusting the app.”…
The general public has a misperception regarding the fragility of helicopter blades. They are solid, heavy, and very tough. Remember, they provide 100% of the lift as well as propulsion, so MUST be structurally very strong.
Wing on an airplane, where 100% of the lift is produced, are tissue paper by comparison.
Last edited:
Helicopters, in general, have many weak points and unlike an airplane have a much more difficult time maintaining flight during power, rotor, tail-rotor loss. I'm afraid your overall understanding of the helicopter is seriously flawed.If it hits a blade, it will be utterly destroyed and explode into dozens of pieces, while the blade, at worst, will get a minor dent but otherwise suffer no perceptible performance degradation:
Drone collides with US Army helicopter, puts 1.5” dent in rotor
Collision at 300 feet reveals limits of “trusting the app.”…
The general public has a misperception regarding the fragility of helicopter blades. They are solid, heavy, and very tough. Remember, they provide 100% of the lift as well as propulsion, so MUST be structurally very strong.
Wing on an airplane, where 100% of the lift is produced, are tissue paper by comparison.
You proved yourself wrong with that very article.
Also I find very little comfort from the fact that a hobby grade UAS did enough damage to a Combat Designed Aircraft to the point it had to make an Emergency Landing and then subsequently had to have the rotors replaced.... again at the expense to Tax Payers of roughly $250,000.00 Remember this is an aircraft designed to fly in some of the harshest and more dangerous scenarios in the WORLD and a Hobby UAS caused it to do an Emergency Landing!
What would that same impact have done if it had been a less "robust" set of rotors? What if the engine intake had not had the robust debris grate and the UAS motor has made it into the Turbine?
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
A lot of misunderstanding here, for sure.
When I point out that helicopter blades are far tougher than many people believe, I'm certainly not saying there is no safety risk, or that a blade/drone collision is minor and should be ignored.
What I'm saying is that a blade strike by any small, light object will be insufficient to cause enough damage to compromise flight and cause loss of control, or lift. And thank goodness, cause bird strikes happen regularly, while infrequently, especially in marine environments.
Are you all familiar with the physics concept of impulse? Because of the speed of the blades, striking a bird is, in the impact analysis, is trivially the same as striking a drone of similar weight. The physics resemble hitting water at hundreds of miles per hour, little different than hitting the ground at that speed.
Safety requirements, from the FAA and DOT require blades to withstand possible strikes like this BECAUSE they are responsible for lift as well as thrust.
@BigAl07, didn't follow you at all regarding how the article I posted disproved the point I'm making here... I made one claim/point regarding this issue – helicopter blades are very strong and tough, and even striking a drone does little damage (1.5in dent), and rarely impacts performance or function – as required by regulation.
I said nothing about whether or not such an incident constitutes an emergency requiring landing.
Here in the Monterey, CA area, there's a report of a seagull or even worse sometimes, pelican hit to copter blades now and then. No crashes that I know of under these circumstances living here over 30 years...
When I point out that helicopter blades are far tougher than many people believe, I'm certainly not saying there is no safety risk, or that a blade/drone collision is minor and should be ignored.
What I'm saying is that a blade strike by any small, light object will be insufficient to cause enough damage to compromise flight and cause loss of control, or lift. And thank goodness, cause bird strikes happen regularly, while infrequently, especially in marine environments.
Are you all familiar with the physics concept of impulse? Because of the speed of the blades, striking a bird is, in the impact analysis, is trivially the same as striking a drone of similar weight. The physics resemble hitting water at hundreds of miles per hour, little different than hitting the ground at that speed.
Safety requirements, from the FAA and DOT require blades to withstand possible strikes like this BECAUSE they are responsible for lift as well as thrust.
@BigAl07, didn't follow you at all regarding how the article I posted disproved the point I'm making here... I made one claim/point regarding this issue – helicopter blades are very strong and tough, and even striking a drone does little damage (1.5in dent), and rarely impacts performance or function – as required by regulation.
I said nothing about whether or not such an incident constitutes an emergency requiring landing.
Here in the Monterey, CA area, there's a report of a seagull or even worse sometimes, pelican hit to copter blades now and then. No crashes that I know of under these circumstances living here over 30 years...
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Also, forgot to mention that ALL aircraft, civilian and military, are required to meet Defense Dept airworthiness criteria. There are no less rigorous criteria for civilian aircraft. Take a look at,
MIL-HDBK-516C, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HANDBOOK: AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION CRITERIA
Don't have a link, only hardcopy.
MIL-HDBK-516C, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HANDBOOK: AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION CRITERIA
Don't have a link, only hardcopy.
As someone who actually worked in a capacity of making aircraft parts (CNC Machinist for 2 different contractors, 1 of them being a General Electric subcontractor if that rings a bell to anything to do with the UH-60) I can tell you without a doubt that there is a HUGE difference between Airworthiness Certification criteria and Combat Aircraft Survivability. You're comparing APPLEs to MONKEYS.
If you think for a moment that the rotor blades on the UH-60 are anywhere near the same composition/strength as what you might find on say a Robinson R22 you really are out of your area of expertise.
For the record, the UH-60 was designed and built to MUCH higher crash/survivability standards set forth by the US ARMY (much higher than what DOT/FAA will ever require). This requirement is UTTAS (the Utility Tactical Transport Aircraft System). This set of requirements includes: improved reliability, survivability .
Again you're trying to compare Apples to Monkeys and it's not valid in the least.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
If that is the case...why not just leave that slightly damaged blade there, instead of spending a quarter million dollars changing it?.....You would think that at that price ...if it poses no threat ...don't bother with it...apparently there is proof that the danger is real to prompt that kind of action at that expense...this is where the story you presented shows the error in your train of thought .....Any imperfection in a blade or control surface...or the fuselage disrupts the aerodynamics of the craft...a preflight of any manned aircraft includes an inspection of these surfaces...and if you look at videos of how to prepare a drone for flight, an inspection including these surfaces is included for the same reason...
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Boy, this is really getting out of hand.
The blade is replaced because it has been damaged. First and foremost because it can no longer be trusted to continue to fly safely indefinately into the future. It is much more at risk of stress failure over time, and could fail in the future.
second reason is regulation requires it – for the very reason cited in the above paragraph.
This conversation seems to have become a pissing match, for some reason. The one and only point I've been making here is that heli blades are both designed and required by regulation to be far more tough than fixed-wing props, wings, tail and fixed and rotary craft fuselage, gear, etc.
The reason for this is safety. So that helis can withstand bird strikes, mostly (small quads are new on the scene), because the blades are critical to staying aloft.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, guys. You seem to be disagreeing with this. Do you?
The blade is replaced because it has been damaged. First and foremost because it can no longer be trusted to continue to fly safely indefinately into the future. It is much more at risk of stress failure over time, and could fail in the future.
second reason is regulation requires it – for the very reason cited in the above paragraph.
This conversation seems to have become a pissing match, for some reason. The one and only point I've been making here is that heli blades are both designed and required by regulation to be far more tough than fixed-wing props, wings, tail and fixed and rotary craft fuselage, gear, etc.
The reason for this is safety. So that helis can withstand bird strikes, mostly (small quads are new on the scene), because the blades are critical to staying aloft.
Not sure what point you're trying to make, guys. You seem to be disagreeing with this. Do you?
It kind of depends on the heli, the UAS, the relative speeds and the collision point. I spent a lot of time flying in Hughes 500 helicopters on projects in Alaska. Unless a Mavic and the helicopter hit at a closing speed of over 100 or so, I think the Mavic would bounce off the windscreen. Hitting a tail rotor could potentially be catastrophic. As far as the main rotors go, our pilots would trim brush with those to get into tight landing zones!
With bigger choppers, I suspect the risk goes down even more. Jet Rangers, Blackhawks, etc. get shot at regularly in combat, and a .50BMG carries a lot more energy than a lightweight drone in hover mode!
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Doubt he even would have seen you......coincidence is my best guess.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Last Week's Most Popular Topics (February 8, 2025)- Started by msinger
- Replies: 0
-
-
Mini 4 Pro Mini 4 Pro Travels to Europe- Started by Hummingbird.UAV
- Replies: 0
Forum statistics
