Drone vs. Aircraft Wing Testing

[sar104]

A while back someone did a data analysis on how much prop wash (yes it's different than airflow over the wing... prop wash is much more pronounce) affected a sUAS within the distance of the rotor and time of impact and IIRC the effect was less than 1/2".

This one?

 

[BigAl07]

This one?

LOL I thought it was one of yours

So it came out to be a pinch more than I thought...

"the deflection will be around 7 cm " (that's 2 3/4")

 

[sar104]

LOL I thought it was one of yours

So it came out to be a pinch more than I thought...

"the deflection will be around 7 cm " (that's 2 3/4")

That was a fairly conservative calculation though. It may well be less in reality.

 

[Andy9]

If the situation of this type is tested the worst possible scenario must be taken into account. Everything else would be better so no need to test it.

Do somebody find any data on hitting the spinning propeller of an aircraft by the drone? It would be interesting too.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

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?

* a 238 mph test conducted on a 150 mph vehicle- Data is incorrect. Check again.
* precisely targeted on the weakest point of the wing-Any part of the structure is subject to an impact.
* the result of which would NOT cause a crash- We don't know.

 

[With The Birds]

* a 238 mph test conducted on a 150 mph vehicle- Data is incorrect. Check again.
* precisely targeted on the weakest point of the wing-Any part of the structure is subject to an impact.
* the result of which would NOT cause a crash- We don't know.

Have you read any of this thread??

Check again.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

Have you read any of this thread??

Check again.

NOPE. Just all of it. A newer Mooney can cruise at 253mph. That is not the point, many GA airplanes cruise faster, striking anything hard is a hazard, thus the point of the testing. The test clearly demonstrated that drones will not just simply "bounce" of aircraft. UAS operators should understand that and exercise due caution. Particularly the knuckleheads who violate airspace and VLOS rules.

 

[With The Birds]

NOPE. Just all of it. A newer Mooney can cruise at 253mph. That is not the point, many GA airplanes cruise faster, striking anything hard is a hazard, thus the point of the testing. The test clearly demonstrated that drones will not just simply "bounce" of aircraft. UAS operators should understand that and exercise due caution. Particularly the knuckleheads who violate airspace and VLOS rules.

Well- it seems you got the point after all... That does make your initial post a little strange.

 

[sar104]

Well- it seems you got the point after all... That does make your initial post a little strange.

I think he was refuting a previous post with his own comments in bold.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

Well- it seems you got the point after all... That does make your initial post a little strange.

I'll draw pictures next time...