I'm going to guess they didn't conduct crash tests on the latest/greatest wing they could find. I'm going to guess they pulled the wing from a retired vehicle.
Any seconds on that?
Drone vs. Aircraft Wing Testing
- Thread starter LuvMyTJ
- Start date
I'm going to guess they didn't conduct crash tests on the latest/greatest wing they could find. I'm going to guess they pulled the wing from a retired vehicle.
Any seconds on that?
Possibly. But earlier versions also had higher cruise speeds than 150 mph - up around 175 kts (200 mph). So the impact speed tested was actually possible, and barely represented a conservative overtest.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Not sure what the skepticism is here.
Objects colliding with aircraft can cause damage. Some damage can cause loss of life.
I was surprised at the seemingly low frangibility of the Phantom upon initial impact.
Objects colliding with aircraft can cause damage. Some damage can cause loss of life.
I was surprised at the seemingly low frangibility of the Phantom upon initial impact.
Last edited:
I was also surprised how well it stayed intact. Maybe it just happened too fast for it to shatter like I was expecting.
For the record I did not expect the bulk of the mass to simply shatter but I did expect more than this video indicated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 26
- Age
- 64
I like the guys idea to make drones more frangible, so they break apart more easily so they won't penetrate so much when striking an aircraft. Seems doable. The battery would be the hardest part to achieve this, and the battery is probably the heaviest part of the drone. Maybe go to a couple of cells, and distribute them at opposite ends of the drone? Just thinking out loud.
I think they should have done more tests - including the Phantom 4, and the Mavic series. Since the Mavics are smaller and lighter, I'm thinking that would correlate to less damage.
I think they should have done more tests - including the Phantom 4, and the Mavic series. Since the Mavics are smaller and lighter, I'm thinking that would correlate to less damage.
I agree with your points, to a degree but keep in mind that the Phantoms and Mavics (while they are the industry leaders) are only a portion of the sUAS on the market today. This is a Phantom forum but there are many other sUAS on the market which need to be considered when talking about damage analysis studies are being discussed.
What about the Inspires, Typhoons, and Matrices. Keep in mind these are larger aircraft (more mass), carry larger motors (more mass), larger batteries (more mass) and some carry multiple batteries. Inspire 2, Matirce 200 each carry 2 batteries while an M600 carries 6 batteries. Just imagine what an M600 with 6 large motors, 6 heafy batteries, and probably carrying a larger payload (can haul a very heavy camera, up to 10lbs IIRC hitting that same wing.
The airframes could likely be made lighter and more brittle without compromising airframe rigidity (softer is not going to work from a mechanical perspective), but I cannot see how the battery and motor components can be mitigated to reduce impact damage.
Naw... bird strikes don't do nearly the same amount of damage....
(BTW - thousands of more photos just like these but I did not see the point in posting more. I think it is obvious that birds can cause as much damage, and far greater damage).
How many plane vs drone collisions have there been? How many drone's are being operated? I'd say that would indicate that drone fliers are doing a good job (far better then birds).
Edit: I'd agree that the real statement is that drone operators are humans in control of the object. Birds don't know any better. But this is not the same as saying drone operators don't attempt to avoid aircraft.
I think the conclusion is that for equivalent mass, birds do less damage. I would certainly expect that to be the case just based on the simple impact dynamics.
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Agree. I’ve had many bird strikes over many years of flying. Some not so bad, others in critical areas. But, so far, no drone strikes.
See and Avoid is necessary to all involved in flight...........including myself at the flight levels, or under 400 feet with my Phantom.
I’ll regret the day when a drone and aircraft meet that causes loss of life. With diligence and common sense hopefully we can avoid that day entirely.
Last edited:
You're correct but that doesn't fit into @tcope narrative or give him reason to banter/debate the topic.
That is not what the narrative of the study stated. Though it was also very unclear, which was part of the problem.
I won't go back and take the quotes from the article that don't support the statement made. For anyone that wants to understand this, they can take their own time to look at the facts (or lack of them).
Sorry, I did not know we should not be debating information in the forum.
There is only one real key statement in the article:
“The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do.”
What is "more apparent damage"? I can only guess this means, more damage that you can see. " the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar". Does this mean that they airplane was any less able to fly? Are bird impacts not able to damage a main spar or cause similar damage?
Yeah, I get it... drones are a danger to manned aircraft. The information put out was mainly to let people know that drones created a danger to manned aircraft. It _does not_ state that drones are more dangerous then birds or that drone impacts are more dangerous then bird impacts.
What we _do_ know is that birds cause _FAR_ more damage to manned aircraft then drones and that _birds_ are a FAR bigger danger. Statistics and real world experience shows this to be true.
That's exactly what the report and the video stated - it did not seem to me to be unclear at all.
The response was to; "birds do less damage."
Here is what the article stated; "“The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing". We are talking about a plane and the fear of it failing to fly. Which is "more damage" in this regard.... more apparent damage or less apparent damage and some internal damage? They don't say and I suspect it is either because it does not agree with their goals or that they cannot know for sure.
As in... it is unclear.
The real point of the article is to simply say, drones _can_ cause damage to aircraft. So we no longer need to guess. It is not concluding that drones impacts are any more or less dangerous than bird impacts.
What we _do_ know is that bird impacts _greatly_ out number drone impacts (all bird impacts vs 1), birds can cause as much of an issue as drones and a drone impact is _FAR_ more unlikely. Again, this demo really says very little. Really nothing that we did not already know. It's really just a PSA.
I'm not sure what you were reading. The report stated that the bird surrogate caused a larger area of damage, but less penetrating structural damage. The video showed the two events and also included that description of the relative damage. I don't know how it could have been made any clearer.
I'd be curious to know the differences on a moving wing rather than stationary as was used in the test. When the object hits the wing, will the air stream disruption deflect some of the debris thus preventing it's intrusion further into the wing?
I can answer that question. No effect at all. The aerodynamic forces on the debris are much smaller than the impact forces and act for too short a duration to affect the result. The subsequent trajectories of debris that does not enter the wing will be different of course, but those play no significant part in the damage mechanism.
Very true. Some people state "The prop wash from a helicopter rotor will keep a drone from hitting the helicopter"
We know that's not true as I've seen small birds hit the windscreen (I've been IN the aircraft when this happened). A heavier object like a sUAS will hit long before prop wash or anything else can deflect it.
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".
