Drone vs. Aircraft Wing Testing

[LuvMyTJ]

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the structure, damaging its main spar. “While the quadcopter broke apart, its energy and mass hung together to create significant damage to the wing,” said Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDRI."

The Source of the story is here - University of Dayton Research Institute - Risk in the Sky? - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

 

[BigAl07]

I was actually surprised by the amount of damage the mass of the sUAS did to the wing. Granted if it had impacted at a spar the amount of damage could have been less but that's only one possible point of impact.

At speed the gaping hole in the leading edge could cause increasing damage as the wind rips the wing more and more.

If the mass of the sUAS contacted flight control hardware this could have a very DIRE effect on flyability of the aircraft.

 

[mdowney58]

I'm curious what a 2.1 lb bird would do, impacting the same spot on the wing.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

In case anyone was wondering, this is the type of aircraft used. It is a Mooney M20...

 

[BigAl07]

I'm curious what a 2.1 lb bird would do, impacting the same spot on the wing.

Birds are much less dense and don't do nearly the same damage as a dense LiPo battery. Bird bones are mostly hollow/brittle and would compress upon impact and not so much a LiPo battery.

The Phantom4 is roughly 3.04lbs

 

[With The Birds]

Absolutely terrifying.... Many still think our little plastic toys would be shredded by a

Birds are much less dense and don't do nearly the same damage as a dense LiPo battery. Bird bones are mostly hollow/brittle and would compress upon impact and not so much a LiPo battery.

The Phantom4 is roughly 3.04lbs

I would have agreed 100% re birds being less of a threat- the slomo footage is a real eye opener though.

That wing is well and truly opened up before the battery gets anywhere near it- it just glides through the opening made by what got there first.

 

[BigAl07]

Absolutely terrifying.... Many still think our little plastic toys would be shredded by a

I would have agreed 100% re birds being less of a threat- the slomo footage is a real eye opener though.

That wing is well and truly opened up before the battery gets anywhere near it- it just glides through the opening made by what got there first.

You are correct.

 

[The Springs]

The windscreens of smaller aircraft would be very vulnerable even though they are sloped .
My neighbour has 5 AG aircraft .I have sat in few and notice that the windscreens are quite substantial which is logical consider how low to the ground they operate .Some even have a protective bar running down the centre .This isn't the case with his Cessna and STOL (can't remember the name of it) aircraft .
They are very thin.
I think the small helicopters ,R22 etc would be the most vulnerable to this kind of impact even though they travel slower .

 

[sar104]

I'm curious what a 2.1 lb bird would do, impacting the same spot on the wing.

If you read the summary report from the research group that did the testing - they did exactly that with an equal weight gel simulant of a bird. It produce a large damage area (not surprising because it is less dense and thus bigger) but significantly less structural damage to the wing ( also not surprising since it is less dense).

 

[FL_Mike]

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the structure, damaging its main spar. “While the quadcopter broke apart, its energy and mass hung together to create significant damage to the wing,” said Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDRI."

The Source of the story is here - University of Dayton Research Institute - Risk in the Sky? - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

Every PIC that gets their rocks off on flights beyond VLOS should really think about this video.

I've see the comparison of BVLOS (beyond visual line of sight) flight to speeding by 1 mph on this site many times. That's a really poor analogy. A proper analogy to BVLOS would be blacking out every window and soundproofing the car, then driving based on a grill camera that has the potential to black out at random.

Every UAS pilot speaks for our community. Every BVLOS flight video I see posted here is another notch on the stick the lawmakers will beat us with.

 

[Kirby Johnson]

Hmmm...Then why do I still have this nagging feeling (No offence Canucks) that there are far more big fat Canadian Geese in the air than drones? And they travel in packs! Just sayin......................

 

[sar104]

Hmmm...Then why do I still have this nagging feeling (No offence Canucks) that there are far more big fat Canadian Geese in the air than drones? And they travel in packs! Just sayin......................

I think you mean "just deflectin....".

 

[BigAl07]

Hmmm...Then why do I still have this nagging feeling (No offence Canucks) that there are far more big fat Canadian Geese in the air than drones? And they travel in packs! Just sayin......................

Thanks goodness the birds try their best to See & Avoid. Drone operators not so much unfortunately.

 

[Northern Canadian]

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the structure, damaging its main spar. “While the quadcopter broke apart, its energy and mass hung together to create significant damage to the wing,” said Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDRI."

The Source of the story is here - University of Dayton Research Institute - Risk in the Sky? - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

The lipo battery would be a significant fire hazard too. More and more I am realizing the need to have Transport Canada being so strict. There is all sorts of footage out there of reckless, dangerous, and life threatening use of drones.

 

[Northern Canadian]

I think you mean "just deflectin....".

A goose is hazardous for sure, but it would be cut in half (or shatter) on impact in my opinion. I would predict much less damage.

 

[Rkuyvenhoven]

Just for general info
I hit a buzzard in a DC 9 back in the 90s on short final going about 140kts and it went thru the radome, thru the firewall and ended up in the front wheel well, most aircraft aren't designed to take a hit from any object weather it be a bird or a drone, it's going to create significant damage to almost any part it hits
Just saying

 

[ScottLB]

Just for general info
I hit a buzzard in a DC 9 back in the 90s on short final going about 140kts and it went thru the radome, thru the firewall and ended up in the front wheel well, most aircraft aren't designed to take a hit from any object weather it be a bird or a drone, it's going to create significant damage to almost any part it hits
Just saying

Interesting. We hit a goose on downwind in a DC-9-30. Hit the right slat just as we were extending it. Caused a rapid roll to the right due to the slat extension being delayed by the goose, followed by a recovery as the now smashed goose went on past. After landing, inspection noted a very large dent in the slat about a third of the way out from the fuselage end. Got to spend an extra night in Champagne, IL for that one.

 

[Rkuyvenhoven]

Interesting. We hit a goose on downwind in a DC-9-30. Hit the right slat just as we were extending it. Caused a rapid roll to the right due to the slat extension being delayed by the goose, followed by a recovery as the now smashed goose went on past. After landing, inspection noted a very large dent in the slat about a third of the way out from the fuselage end. Got to spend an extra night in Champagne, IL for that one.

Not to go off subject but what are you flying now Scott
Just a fellow aviator

 

[Harleydude]

While I applaud actual research being done here, am I the only person here who is going to point out that the top speed of the M20 is 150 mph? Thereby, the M20 is designed accordingly? Faster planes get stronger hulls. And unless my math is off, the drone would have to have a velocity of @ 83 MPH to achieve the total velocity shown in this video. Surely, in that situation, the drone would don props.

Another important factor is the precision with which the drone was targeted to an exact point on the wing. 2" higher or lower would probably net a completely different result.

And finally, would this kind of wing damage cause the plane to crash? I'm not an aviation forensics expert, but I'm going to guess not. Any experts out there want to challenge this? I'm all ears.

What my analytical mind sees here are the following:

* a 238 mph test conducted on a 150 mph vehicle
* precisely targeted on the weakest point of the wing
* the result of which would NOT cause a crash

Anyone else seeing this?

 

[sar104]

While I applaud actual research being done here, am I the only person here who is going to point out that the top speed of the M20 is 150 mph? Thereby, the M20 is designed accordingly? Faster planes get stronger hulls. And unless my math is off, the drone would have to have a velocity of @ 83 MPH to achieve the total velocity shown in this video. Surely, in that situation, the drone would don props.

Another important factor is the precision with which the drone was targeted to an exact point on the wing. 2" higher or lower would probably net a completely different result.

And finally, would this kind of wing damage cause the plane to crash? I'm not an aviation forensics expert, but I'm going to guess not. Any experts out there want to challenge this? I'm all ears.

What my analytical mind sees here are the following:

* a 238 mph test conducted on a 150 mph vehicle
* precisely targeted on the weakest point of the wing
* the result of which would NOT cause a crash

Anyone else seeing this?

Depends on the model. The latest M20s will cruise at around 220 kts (253 mph).

Aircraft