mdurbanek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 118
- Reaction score
- 80
- Location
- Ojai, California
- Website
- www.architecturalshots.com
Test video of Phantom striking General aviation airplane wing
- Thread starter LUIS MARTINEZ
- Start date
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 52
- Age
- 67
- Location
- Maine
- Website
- www.kestrelsolutionsuav.com
Just to lighten up those possibilities, I'm reminded of a great story coming fro the USAF in the late 50's. The RAF admins contacted USAF facilities seeking help in solving a perplexing design flaw in their new bubble canopies and windscreens. Apparently, and I heard this long long ago, the yanks were testing Sabre (F84) canopies by firing high speed projectiles at them. Concerned and worried worried about bird strikes into intakes and canopy strikes, they used large birds, namely turkeys, as projectiles for data collection and proof of concept testing.
They then sent the schematics, plans, materials and firing mechanisms off to the RAF. A very short time later, the RAF was still complaining about material failures (in the form of shattered windscreens and bubble tops, etc.).
This went back and forth for a while. Finally, it was realized that the test materials sent to the UK included turkeys, but they were frozen solid to endure the oceanic pass to the UK.
The Brits, were not thawing them before testing with them.
No offense intended.
They then sent the schematics, plans, materials and firing mechanisms off to the RAF. A very short time later, the RAF was still complaining about material failures (in the form of shattered windscreens and bubble tops, etc.).
This went back and forth for a while. Finally, it was realized that the test materials sent to the UK included turkeys, but they were frozen solid to endure the oceanic pass to the UK.
The Brits, were not thawing them before testing with them.
No offense intended.
MapMaker53
Well-Known Member
I've heard that story. Just a made up urban legend with several variations. Sorry to disappoint.
FACT CHECK: The Chicken Cannon
FACT CHECK: The Chicken Cannon
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 52
- Age
- 67
- Location
- Maine
- Website
- www.kestrelsolutionsuav.com
ArrUnTuS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2018
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 146
It is not so much an invented history when nowadays this type of tests are made even with the front windows of the trains or subways. This type of glass has to withstand the impact of a steel ball of 2 kg at 80km/h. We take into account such high demands on a surface vehicle and at a much lower speed, the front windows of the areonaves piloted, which are going to much higher speed have to withstand much more impact force. You only have to look at the thickness of those windows, I even think they are like those of the banks, bulletproof.
Anyway, someone has taken into account the dangerousness of LIPO batteries? A damaged LIPO, which are very flammable, that gets into the wing when there is fuel nearby I don't think it has good consequences. That you can try a fire every 1000 times there is an accident is not admissible, but each think how it would feel to be mounted on that plane ..............
Aviation regulations are so rigid because, given the height at which aircraft fly, losing control almost certainly means death.......................
Anyway, someone has taken into account the dangerousness of LIPO batteries? A damaged LIPO, which are very flammable, that gets into the wing when there is fuel nearby I don't think it has good consequences. That you can try a fire every 1000 times there is an accident is not admissible, but each think how it would feel to be mounted on that plane ..............
Aviation regulations are so rigid because, given the height at which aircraft fly, losing control almost certainly means death.......................
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Satdiver
Member
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Yeah they're saying the speed & type of aircraft is not right plus the bird strike video was as bad but it wasn't released
My heart bleeds for this billion dollar company....The facts are simple, a phantom will cause serious damage to a GA airplane wing and that is why we must follow FARs and copious amount of common sense. This is a site for professional UAS pilots. The people who need to pay attention, unfortunately, will not read any of this.
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
Good point Luis. I was on a down wind one night and hit a bird, I was in a 182 with about 120 knot airspeed, scared the heck out of me but caused no damage to the plane.
To me the biggest fear would be with jets and having a drone sucked into the intake. Other than that the surface damage would cause damage, but I doubt if it would down an aircraft.
To me the biggest fear would be with jets and having a drone sucked into the intake. Other than that the surface damage would cause damage, but I doubt if it would down an aircraft.
ArrUnTuS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2018
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 146
***********************************************
Air France flight 4590 on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, departed from Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris, France, for John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, United States. On that day, the French Concorde had an accident when taking off, crashing in Gonesse, France. It was the only accident of a Concorde, ending almost thirty years of impeccable track record of the famous supersonic aircraft.
The Concorde passed over the metal part at a speed greater than V1 and broke the tyre on wheel 2 which exploded. A part of the tyre (about 4.5 kg) hit the lower part of the left wing of the plane at more than 300 km/h. This impact sent a pressure wave that would eventually break from inside the number 5 fuel tank at its weakest point, just above the landing gear. The fuel contained in that tank began to spill on the wing, going up in flames in the following seconds.
One hundred passengers of the plane and nine crew members died, as well as four civilians on the ground.
***********************************************
Unfortunately, it is one of the most famous accidents in civil aviation. When I saw the report on the causes of the accident, or the accepted causes of the accident, I was very surprised to learn that such a small piece, in proportion to the size of the aircraft, could have caused the death of 113 people.
It is true that they were an accumulation of situations that is very difficult to reoccur in the same sequence, but it does not matter. If it can happen again, it would mean that we would not have learned anything.
Returning to drones, the chances of a Phantom drone knocking down a large passenger plane are small, but they do exist. As the size of the plane decreases, the chances increase. All agree. I know we're focusing on this case, but isn't it true that the underlying problem is that never should a drone, which is an unmanned aircraft and therefore there are no lives at stake with it, collide with a passenger aircraft?
This type of studies are necessary, more or less scientifically proven to show that it is true, that for years they have been studying the impacts produced by birds, that with drones there is a real danger, that it is always necessary to avoid that a drone is in the trajectory of an airplane and this should not be discussed or questionable.
DJI in this case tries selfishly, as any company whose sole objective is to earn money without caring about anything else, clean their image and prevent the authorities from taking measures that result in a lower number of sales of their products. But even this, which all the big companies do, is really the underlying problem? I think not, it's the human factor. We as pilots are always the ultimate responsible for what our drones do or with our piloting we provoke.
Honestly, I think a drone can shoot down an airplane, even the biggest in the world? Yes, without a doubt, history says that it is possible, how many accidents have to occur for this to happen? I don't care, one time is enough. Air regulations are so strict because in the event of an accident and falling 99.9% of the time means certain death.
Whatever DJI or another big company of drones says, I turn it around quickly. You are guilty of putting in the hands of irresponsible people objects that can cause deaths by taking advantage of the existing legal vacuum in this matter. They would be deprived of the desire to talk nonsense and, in the end, of the importance of a more or less accurate study of the danger posed by drones in the wrong hands, even unintentionally in the right hands.
What a way to wake up on a Saturday I hope everything I want to say is understood
Air France flight 4590 on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, departed from Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris, France, for John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, United States. On that day, the French Concorde had an accident when taking off, crashing in Gonesse, France. It was the only accident of a Concorde, ending almost thirty years of impeccable track record of the famous supersonic aircraft.
The Concorde passed over the metal part at a speed greater than V1 and broke the tyre on wheel 2 which exploded. A part of the tyre (about 4.5 kg) hit the lower part of the left wing of the plane at more than 300 km/h. This impact sent a pressure wave that would eventually break from inside the number 5 fuel tank at its weakest point, just above the landing gear. The fuel contained in that tank began to spill on the wing, going up in flames in the following seconds.
One hundred passengers of the plane and nine crew members died, as well as four civilians on the ground.
***********************************************
Unfortunately, it is one of the most famous accidents in civil aviation. When I saw the report on the causes of the accident, or the accepted causes of the accident, I was very surprised to learn that such a small piece, in proportion to the size of the aircraft, could have caused the death of 113 people.
It is true that they were an accumulation of situations that is very difficult to reoccur in the same sequence, but it does not matter. If it can happen again, it would mean that we would not have learned anything.
Returning to drones, the chances of a Phantom drone knocking down a large passenger plane are small, but they do exist. As the size of the plane decreases, the chances increase. All agree. I know we're focusing on this case, but isn't it true that the underlying problem is that never should a drone, which is an unmanned aircraft and therefore there are no lives at stake with it, collide with a passenger aircraft?
This type of studies are necessary, more or less scientifically proven to show that it is true, that for years they have been studying the impacts produced by birds, that with drones there is a real danger, that it is always necessary to avoid that a drone is in the trajectory of an airplane and this should not be discussed or questionable.
DJI in this case tries selfishly, as any company whose sole objective is to earn money without caring about anything else, clean their image and prevent the authorities from taking measures that result in a lower number of sales of their products. But even this, which all the big companies do, is really the underlying problem? I think not, it's the human factor. We as pilots are always the ultimate responsible for what our drones do or with our piloting we provoke.
Honestly, I think a drone can shoot down an airplane, even the biggest in the world? Yes, without a doubt, history says that it is possible, how many accidents have to occur for this to happen? I don't care, one time is enough. Air regulations are so strict because in the event of an accident and falling 99.9% of the time means certain death.
Whatever DJI or another big company of drones says, I turn it around quickly. You are guilty of putting in the hands of irresponsible people objects that can cause deaths by taking advantage of the existing legal vacuum in this matter. They would be deprived of the desire to talk nonsense and, in the end, of the importance of a more or less accurate study of the danger posed by drones in the wrong hands, even unintentionally in the right hands.
What a way to wake up on a Saturday
I hope everything I want to say is understood The root cause of Concord incident was debris on the runway. FOD (foreign object damage). In spite of controls/mitigation methods it costs the aerospace industry 4 billion dollars annually. FOD is things like tools, fasteners, trash, etc. ending up in places it shouldn't be. Its crashed airplanes and killed people. The number of FOD related crashes and lives lost is likely not completely known, as the smoking hole rarely gives up all of its secrets. Drones are not included in the definition.
You will never hear the public being warned about it.
Not a blip in the news.
Just a little perspective.
You will never hear the public being warned about it.
Not a blip in the news.
Just a little perspective.
This puts DJI's stance into perspective, they are WRONG IMHO:
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman
Without the testing parameters being a part of the record, which I do not recall from the original post, DJI has a point. On face value it does appear that the University of Dayton fudged the testing to make the results match the claim rather than reality which is a rather commonplace occurrence in university studies. Not that I am siding with DJI, but BS is BS....
While I understand the point many here (and across the internet) are trying to make about how this isn't a "REAL" scientific test... I don't fully see it from the same point of view. How many automotive impact tests have we watched on TV and the net involving various cars/trucks/vans being destroyed and with NO test parameters being released? We don''t discredit those tests simply because they don't provide the full technical report along with the video when it's released. I've never seen anyone say, "Oh that crash test didn't give us the details of parameters of the test. Maybe that weighted sled was traveling faster than the average vehicular impact so the whole test is botched".
I'd be willing to bet that there is a FULL test report (or there will be once it's compiled... keep in mind this is a very recent test so reports take time) but this video isn't about that type of details.
See where I'm coming from? This was what I would call a "Test Demonstration" but regardless what we call it the effects are still apparent and very sobering to so many in our industry. How many times have we seen statements like:
"Our tiny plastic drones will just bounce off of an aircraft and cause little to no damage what so ever."
or
"They only weight a couple to a few pounds so what damage can a few pounds of plastic REALLY do to a METAL aircraft?"
My sincere hopes are that this "demonstration" will free up some significant funds so in-depth and detailed tests can be performed going forward. Can you imagine how much damage, if in the exact same scenario, an Inspire 2 (dual batteries) would do? Now think about a Matrice 600 (6 motors, 6 batteries) carrying a large heavy production camera impacting the same wing in the same way and speed.
I'd be willing to bet that there is a FULL test report (or there will be once it's compiled... keep in mind this is a very recent test so reports take time) but this video isn't about that type of details.
See where I'm coming from? This was what I would call a "Test Demonstration" but regardless what we call it the effects are still apparent and very sobering to so many in our industry. How many times have we seen statements like:
"Our tiny plastic drones will just bounce off of an aircraft and cause little to no damage what so ever."
or
"They only weight a couple to a few pounds so what damage can a few pounds of plastic REALLY do to a METAL aircraft?"
My sincere hopes are that this "demonstration" will free up some significant funds so in-depth and detailed tests can be performed going forward. Can you imagine how much damage, if in the exact same scenario, an Inspire 2 (dual batteries) would do? Now think about a Matrice 600 (6 motors, 6 batteries) carrying a large heavy production camera impacting the same wing in the same way and speed.
My problem is not so much with the video or the testing. My problem is with this obsession with making drones sound as scary as possible in the public eye.
While aviation is a very safe form of travel, planes do fall out of the sky and as soon as one does the media goes above and beyond to remind us how safe it is out there. "Don't be afraid to fly"..." Aircraft are safe"... "1 in 1 billion occurrence"
BUT... As soon as pilot even thinks he sees a drone in his field of view. OH MY GOD...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. They're portraying this like we all need to build bunkers in our yards because planes are going to start raining down upon our houses.
I don't think anyone would argue that adding a new element into the air space poses some new challenges but this has elevated the issue to fear mongering.
When you look at this campaign to stop texting and driving… all the scary videos of someone sending a text then getting T boned at an intersection. They show them on TV an in movie theatres. They've had ZERO effect. I drive a truck and can see inside most vehicles and everyone is texting. And I mean everyone, as in 95% or better.
So I just have to ask… who do they think they're "educating". General public? Hobbyists? DJI? Commercial operators?
I'm not remotely convinced that the person that doesn't understand what happens when 2 objects collide at speed is going to give a rat's behind about this video or even care.
As a nation, we avoid fear mongering (like the plague) when it comes to aviation. Why the difference when it comes to drones? It makes absolutely no sense unless there is some kind of agenda behind it.
@Weaponized this is sensationalized because DRONES are a BUZZ word thanks to media and ignorance. You could write a news article about dog poop and mention that the pictures were taken via DRONE and you'd greatly increase your hits across the internet. Better yet toss the word DRONE into the article TITLE and your hits go through the roof.
Like it or not John Q. Public has been taught to fear drones (wrongfully so) in just about every aspect of our society. I don't agree with that but I do whole heartedly agree with publicizing drone to manned aircraft potential danger. I think this video should be MANDATORY viewing for anyone buying a sUAS in the USA going forward and make them sign a letter stating they have seen the video and understand that sUAS pose a very real threat to manned aircraft.
Like it or not John Q. Public has been taught to fear drones (wrongfully so) in just about every aspect of our society. I don't agree with that but I do whole heartedly agree with publicizing drone to manned aircraft potential danger. I think this video should be MANDATORY viewing for anyone buying a sUAS in the USA going forward and make them sign a letter stating they have seen the video and understand that sUAS pose a very real threat to manned aircraft.
New Posts
-
-
-
-
Sharing My Music and Sound Effects - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
Members online
No members online now.