results of drone / aircraft mid air collision damage study in the UK

[BigAl07]

Interesting preliminary results here. Keep in mind that a lot of this is purely "computer simulations" so many are going to have doubts about it's validity.

U.K. Government releases results of drone / aircraft mid air collision damage study - ASN News


For me, this statement sums it up and goes along with what many of us have speculated all along:

"The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards."

 

[Mallettron]

Of course the results only mention drones, no mention of single or multiple birds. Also it seems there are multiple classes of windscreen, one would have thought all windscreens should be of the best quality as flying objects dont pick and choose

Also, computer simulation is ok but real results are better, plenty of spare old planes and helis available throught the world

 

[N017RW]

Items are designed for their intended use. Should a Piper Cub have the same canopy as an SR-71?

However you highlight a common problem in discussing many things here and elsewhere... what we think is often incorrect.

 

[Mallettron]

I dont think i put my point over right

Birds could strike any plane, so surely the canopy should be able to withstand it as a matter of course, whether its a cub or a jet the effect will be the same, although the outcome may be different

I notice they commented on the tail rotor, hitting it would be pure luck!

I notice on british forces news there was a report of a close call between a tanker and some jets, too high for a drone but the prospect of quite a bit of damage

 

[BigAl07]

Low altitude and slower flying aircraft do not have "Impact Rated" windows. Never have and probably never will (I hope anyway). Aviation is like anything else and the cost of the product weighs very heavily on how "robust" the product is. The window is designed for normal use, at normal speeds, at normal altitudes and so forth.

As N017RW point out we don't want/need the same window in our Piper Cub as what we have flying in the upper stratosphere. It just doesn't make sense and would be over kill in weight, cost, and performance across the board.

They didn't test birds (single or multiple) because those studies have been done and redone over the years. They already have TONS of that data on file so why waste the time and $$ to reproduce what's already done? This test was purely about Drones and how they might impact aircraft.

The Tail Rotor is mentioned because it's a fragile and VERY important assembly on a helicopter and a critical failure point so of course it will be mentioned in a study like this. Ask any helicopter pilot what the single most important thing they'd want to know from a study like this and I'd imagine Tail Rotor strikes would rate up there in the high 90+%.

 

[loadpin]

Isn't part of the bird strike testing on aircraft windshield, shooting a minimum 3 lb frozen chicken out of an air cannon, which seems quite a bit harder than a quad hitting the windshield.

 

[N017RW]

No.
The birds are not frozen.
Why would they be?
That's not how they exist in nature.

 

[sswingle]

Isn't part of the bird strike testing on aircraft windshield, shooting a minimum 3 lb frozen chicken out of an air cannon, which seems quite a bit harder than a quad hitting the windshield.

Someone watches too much Mythbusters

 

[N017RW]

It's a bit of history actually.

Briefly put... IIRC, the Brits developed the test and we borrowed it. The US engineers mistakenly used frozen birds at first. This is how this 'legend' or similar began.

 

[Wolfiesden]

Wonder if they tried freezing the drones before the strike tests?