University of Dayton Research Institute - Risk in the Sky? - sUAS News - The Business of Drones
Impact test speed- 238 mph
Mooney M20 cruise speed-~242 knots.
Last edited:
Test video of Phantom striking General aviation airplane wing
- Thread starter LUIS MARTINEZ
- Start date
University of Dayton Research Institute - Risk in the Sky? - sUAS News - The Business of Drones
Impact test speed- 238 mph
Mooney M20 cruise speed-~242 knots.
I will admit that did more damage than I had expected. I look forward to the full report on this testing.
Great link sir.
Great link sir.
Freaked me out a little bit. I thought it would simply break up and the wing would need a paint job.... but wow!
I'm sure it could cause additional failures if the aircraft (manned aircraft not sUAS) is traveling at a significant speed. I could totally see this destroying a horizontal or vertical stabilizer and causing loss of control of many aircraft.
Initially I thought it was a FABRIC covered airframe but after watching it on my laptop (instead of iPhone) it does appear to be an aluminum skinned aircraft (very light gauge though).
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
That is significant damage for sure. First of all if a drone is flying within the 400 foot window, and a pilot is dumb enough to fly 238 mph that low he isn't being too smart. Most approach speeds to airports are between 80 and 150 mph, 150 for an airliner, 80 - 90 for single engine general aviation aircraft. So lets come up with some realistic mid air speeds.
If the drone was flying at 50mph and hit an airliner on approach head on you would be looking at a 200 mph impact.
Leading edge control surfaces could be damaged severely on an airliner, but I believe it would be minimal on a general aviation aircraft because most control cables and movable surfaces are on the trailing edge of the wings.
Now you take some of the larger drones that damage could be increased significantly based on the weight of the drone.
Good lesson here, stay out of the way of other aircraft.
If the drone was flying at 50mph and hit an airliner on approach head on you would be looking at a 200 mph impact.
Leading edge control surfaces could be damaged severely on an airliner, but I believe it would be minimal on a general aviation aircraft because most control cables and movable surfaces are on the trailing edge of the wings.
Now you take some of the larger drones that damage could be increased significantly based on the weight of the drone.
Good lesson here, stay out of the way of other aircraft.
MapMaker53
Well-Known Member
More likely and more common than a dumb enough pilot flying within the 400 ft window at 238 mph is an uneducated or reckless drone operator flying well ABOVE 400 ft. That's how I look at it, realistically. As a matter of fact, the next video that loaded after that one was of a complete moron who does just that.
Sure didn't expect that amount of damage. That's just frightening.
Last edited:
It did a bit of damage but was not catastrophic. The leading edge was punctured and the anti-icing boot (if one were installed) would have taken a hit but the flight would have made it back. If the UAS would have been 10" right or left it would have struck a spar and the damage would not have been as dramatic. The biggest concern would be taking out one of the control cables to an aileron on a smaller aircraft which would make the pilot's job really unpleasant.
As far as a fuel tank that was mentioned in one reply, they are constructed of a different gauge aluminum and inside the fuel box there is a rubber bladder that actually holds the fuel so going through the skin and then a few ribs and spars and then being able to penetrate the fuel tank and bladder is not as likely a scenario. But still, it made for an interesting video.
Florida Drone Supply
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2018
- Messages
- 563
- Reaction score
- 301
Not that it really matters but many aircraft are wet winged fuel tanks, meaning there is no bladder at all. Which does lead to a heavier skinned wing but seeing this damage should awaken many people to the real dangers of a drone/manned aircraft accident.
Its all a moot point if we just follow the regs.
Seems like a lot of sensationalism over nothing here. In this context… it's long been known that fast moving objects can damage an aircraft. A golf ball traveling at that speed can puncture the skin. I have personally removed the remains of giant fruit bats from both a radome and a leading edge cavity so this "OMG...look what a drone can do" headline seems the have an agenda.
An impact at speed with (insert scary object of the day here) will damage an aircraft. Write it down if you need to.
The notion that there are those in aviation that don't know this is arguably scarier that the presence of drones in the national airspace.
An impact at speed with (insert scary object of the day here) will damage an aircraft. Write it down if you need to.
The notion that there are those in aviation that don't know this is arguably scarier that the presence of drones in the national airspace.
While many of us who are seasoned in aviation "knew" that a sUAS would cause a significant amount of damage in the right situation the masses of "yet to be informed" sUAS operators simply think that a plastic "Phantom" weighing 3.04lbs would not do any "appreciable" damage to today's manned aircraft.
I could literally spend hours linking to posts where John Q. Drone Pilot states that if an large bird weight 6,8, + lbs don't take down aircraft every day then a 3lb plastic drone wont. They don't take into account the mere hardness of a drone batter/motors as compared to the brittleness of a bird carcass. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the comment "The military used to shoot frozen turkeys into aircraft engines to test them so why the fuss over a plastic drone"? That right there is ignorance running wild.
I personally don't believe that this type of "education" is going to have the desired effect. As long as these things are marketed as toys available to the masses I don't think any amount of education is going to weed out the dummies.
I think the net effect of this will be knee jerk political reactions and over regulation to the point where becomes difficult for small operators to compete with large operators And will have the same effect as gun control… Make it harder for the law abiding While the criminals continue to do what they wish.
For every hobbyist that sees videos like this and takes it to heart, there will be 100 people in aviation that will use it as their rallying cry to shackle the rest of us.
I don't disagree with you entirely. I think that hobby operators should be required to have some level of training and testing to be able to operate an aircraft that can fly higher than 50' and beyond 200' away.
Thank you for the condescending tone. This posting is simply sharing information. And yes, "some" of those in aviation do know the damage potential of airborne objects to powerplant and airframe. BTW, I soloed an airplane in 1969, while u were still watching Howdy Doody...
How you obtained tone from written text is beyond me but go ahead and knock yourself out.
This post is in a public forum, I can only assume to elicit response.
I gave one. Whether or not you would agree with it or like it was not remotely a consideration. Clearly you did not. I don't know how I can live with myself moving forward.
Now THAT was condescending.
This post is in a public forum, I can only assume to elicit response.
I gave one. Whether or not you would agree with it or like it was not remotely a consideration. Clearly you did not. I don't know how I can live with myself moving forward.
Now THAT was condescending.
Hey hey now. There's no need to bring Howdy Doody into this. The man was a saint.
