이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 36

This is the result when a quadcopter strikes the wing of an aircraft

제출됨
 
(...the team launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft...) (www.digitaltrends.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


kenoraeagle
While goose hunting last year, we were continuosly buzzed by a drone. We were on the perimeter fence to the local airport and the drone was definitley entering the airport airspace. When the opportunity presented itself, we blew it out of the air. Talked to the airport manager about this and he thanked us. Apparently some asshole kept flying it into the tarmac area and twice they had to call off approaching aircraft.
climberrn
Thank You! From a pilot.
ToddBaldwin3
In doing so, you broke the law, and just admitted to that fact.
corsair2
All I can say is "It sucks to be the owner of that (ex-) drone"!
tongo
Only because he was not military or police. Otherwise, actions taken to ensure the safety of life are permitted. If the drone was being operated as a hazard to aircraft, defensive measures to remove the hazard would be appropriate.
WhiteKnight77
Wow, someone removed a bunch of posts and replies.
joelwiley
I think someone's account was revoked.
tongo
And good riddance...
bentwing60
Might as well have taken down the whole thread, his incivility did not negate the validity of the other posters comments that set him off.
WhiteKnight77
Some of the replies were to his replies and would not make sense standing on their own. I know that mine would not have.
lynx318
lynx318 3
Was the test done in a wind tunnel, putting the wing under flight load stresses? It doesn't look like it, this doesn't give a really accurate result as we don't know if the wing could have catastrophically failed definitively.
blackstock
I think this is a good topic to do just type of research into. I would think that most drone interaction zones are going to be in the 200 kias speed restricted ranges. (Beneath Class B, in Classes C,D,E,G etc) So, in this case, 238mph would be just over max speed one should 'reasonably' see.

In the case of the Mooney M20 test aircraft, this test was faster than vne. (A condition it is clearly not designed for: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=36780 ) Likewise,from the video they were aiming mid-spar, thus an open cavity with thin protection. My point being, this text exceeded the design specification for the Mooney's wing, and the investigators should address that in their report. (The reason they chose that speed, that location on the wing, and what they determined. For example, it still looked flyable ---that Mooney that is.)

The common buzzard (a more probable hazard around here) can easily weigh twice the Phantom. I've come close to hitting a buzzard a few times (once glancing off the external wing spar), but never felt 'click-bait' unsafe. More testing is needed, but I wish the 'news' would stop it with these click-bait 'reports.' The researchers can be just a guilty by showing the glamour moments without making the reporter listen to all the science, rational, and limits behind the tests.

The public does need education on their role in the National Airspace System. Hopefully this can be done with just education and without much knew-jerk regulations. So, like everything, this is a mixed bag. Just the type of video that low information voters crave right now. It will be echoed when this video is picked up by the likes of other non-traditional media.
8literbeater
Michael, just something to think about: 200 kias can easily be 207 ktas. DJI claims a top speed of 15 m/s, or 33.5 mph. That's 240 mph if they're going opposite directions. So 238 mph is not out of reason for speed, but probably the most extreme for this particular combination of aircraft.

On the other hand, if I was in the Mooney, I can't think of any area I'd rather hit a drone with than that particular part of the airplane. That's got to be the most resilient and least likely area to cause major problems. I think if they were trying to go for shock value, they could have shot it at the windshield. They could have shot it at the thinner skinned outboard section of the wing and disrupted airflow over the aileron.

I think there are also some unwanted ways to lodge a two pound drone into an engine cowling at 240 miles per hour that would make quite a spectacle with all the gas, oil, and other complications in there.

It seems like a very reasonable simple destructive test to me. One of the good parts about it, is that it gets a few more people interested in finding a solution earlier rather than later.
JMARTINSON
They only had the one wing for testing.
linbb
linbb -5
Never seen an external wing spar must be something new. All of your bs about not designed was also the same. Aircraft are subject to damage, the areas which are most likely to be are protected to the best degree. Such as the stab for rock damage on light aircraft that are operated out of unimproved fields.
Skin on all AC are as thin as possible to save weight everywhere. Many would not know how thin light AC skins are and how easy the can be damaged. One I helped repair was a C210 that cut a power line and caused damage to both leading edges and the flaps. So kind of know what is what.
blackstock
(Not new, Strut would be the proper term: Maul M-5 being the aircraft struck with bird during that flight. Communication has 'noise', typos being one of them, I find it's best not to focus on this noise, and read from context. Much like speaking over aircraft noise when on the ramp at the airport. Someone calling someone else's words bs is also not helpful, although this new noise should be confronted in most cases. )



An aircraft is not designed to exceed vne. Thus using contextual reading; they accelerated an object to an impact speed the that wing as designed should never encounter in an object-- such as a flying bird or drone. (because, simply the aircraft should never by going that fast, and those too objects should not generally travel fast enough to make up the difference.) Nonetheless, I thought (and stated) the wing held up well in the face of this exaggerated worst-case test. (And also why I called on the researchers to publish their reasoning, limits, and outcome of the test.)

I don't write on here often because too many simply like to troll and insult. I'm glad to see my opinion remains unchanged.
tongo
You're analysis is incorrect. A Mooney Ovation's Vne is typically 174 knots. The DJI Phantom 4, a very common drone, has a top flight speed of over 40 knots. The maximum closing speed while both aircraft are being operated in their design envelope is 214 knots. 200 knots makes for a valid test.

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

kdhurne
I get that this is an alarmist article and that the test parameters are highly unlikely, but I do find it surprising that there is very little info out there on the actual damage potential a drone strike could cause. As David McKie pointed out, there are plenty of idiots out there who are more than willing to fly a drone in restricted airspace - whether willfully or by ignorance. And as noted, with drones becoming less expensive and more popular, the likely hood of strikes becoming more frequent is rather high.
GraemeSmith
Pilots bear some responsibility too. See first page article from RI Pilots Association Newsletter this month.

http://ripilots.com/PDFsTemp/planepaper1018.pdf
tongo
Your comment can be easily mis-understood.

Pilots have no legal responsibility to see and avoid drones. The responsibility is all on the pilot of the unmanned aerial vehicle. The article you reference only suggests that pilots are to adhere to minimum safe altitudes, and that is a requirement in all cases of flying an airplane, and not really applicable to a drone versus aircraft conversation.
cannonfodder
And car operators going through an intersection with a green light have no legal responsibility to see and avoid someone running a red light. Technically correct, practically meaningless at protecting lives. -- But I do agree the reference is more about the pilot's failure to maintain altitude.
joelwiley
I was thinking about waiting for the report to come out. I contacted UDRI to see if it would be published. This is the result:
From: UDRI

Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:12 PM
To: joel wiley
Subject: RE: Drone VS Mooney Wing Video

Hi Joel,
I’m sorry for the delay in responding; as you can imagine, we are getting numerous requests re this video.
Typically tests such as these are funded by an external sponsor, for whom we produce a report. In this case, the researchers did not have an external funder, and so did not produce a report. They are, however, working to find sponsors for additional tests on various aircraft structures, and will consider producing a paper that discusses multiple tests at that time.
Thank you for writing,



300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-7759
udri.udayton.edu



Subject: Drone VS Mooney Wing Video

Dear UDRI:
After watching the Internet video of University of Dayton Impact Physics group and seeing some of the reaction to it, I have a question.

Is the study form which this video was extracted going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I am sure I am not the only one interested in the study design and results.

Thank you in advance,
Joel Wiley


Anyone want to set up a GOFUNDME site to pay for a report?
belzybob
belzybob 2
I'd be interested to see a test that included the aerodynamics in play and what effect the wing's bow wave would have on the drone.
tongo
At cruise speeds, the bow wave in front of the leading edge of an aircraft wing extends less than 12 inches away from the wing. At 200 knots, the drone would spend less than 3 milliseconds passing through the bow wave. The effect of the bow wave would be to propel the drone in front of the wing, but the cumulative affect of a relative wind of 200 knots acting on the drone for less than 3 milliseconds would be insignificant compared to the initial velocity difference of drone and aircraft.

And, it turns out, this really does not matter, because in this test, the drone was creating a similar bow wave itself, which acted to slow the drone down ever so slightly before it contacted the wing, essentially mimicking the affect of the wing's bow wave.
devsfan
If i understand correctly. You are theorizing that the drone would be deflected upward and over the wing and downward below as the drone approached the leading edge? And that if only the drone was at a perfect angle of attack relative to the leading edge, could it actually make a direct center of the leading edge collision?
PegLegJim
While the article is arguable one way or the other in a structural integrity discussion, there’s another topic that should be even more concerning.
Two months ago, just after rotation off the water, my brother realized he was being “chased” & overtaken by a large drone.
Before he could take evasive action, it flew IN FRONT OF THE AIRPLANE, evidently to capture a video of the takeoff.
Both left and right chairs agreed that it passed a mere 30 to 50 feet off the nose of the airplane.
IF THAT DRONE HAD STRUCK THE PROP, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOWHERE TO GO BUT INTO THE TREES.
There IS a happy ending, however.
The last thing they saw as the LARGE drone swung under the plane & into the “dirty air” was the drone tumbling towards the lake.
dabeed
wow! how to reconcile that with the outline of the wings on the WTC towers... hmm...
eesteve
Too technical (the comments) for me !! Bottom line..The proliferation of drones and in the hands of amateurs who are experiencing the "Rush" of flying and the almost complete lack of FAA control and enforcement is extremely dangerous !
Dl8698
Just ban drone flying in the vicinity of all airfields. I can't see why the rights of drone flyers OVERRIDE the rights of aircraft pilots and passengers to have a safe flight.
As I have said before on this site. Would anyone who really believes that drones hitting an aircraft will not be catastrophic just because it has not happened,yet, be willing to fly a Real aircraft on short finals and be Deliberately hit by a drone? As an experiment. Of course the drone driver is free to hit whichever part of the aircraft he wishes. I think the cockpit windshield should be great.

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

sparkie624
There are a lot of unknown variables here.... For one, what a/c / Wing was that... The structure looked a lot thinner than anything that I have worked on... 2 the side of the Quad... 3 this is obviously a wind tunnel test, so basically they took the quad and blew into a wing controlling where it was going to hit choosing the worst place for damage. A/C are designed to deflect birds and to divert them away from engines (even though it is not always effective)... That was a worst case scenario!
sparkie624
With that being said, people should not fly drones above 400 feet and never within a 1/2 mile of an airport ever! I have been flying RC Planes for years.... Anything over 400 feet is just stupid! but people do it quite frequently, but then again we have a lot of stupid people in this world.
linbb
linbb 1
Its the same as most light AC I have those being Cessna, Piper, Aero Comander twins, Grumman and Vans RV3 which I built. Don't know what you have but forgot, B25,P38 should be included.
bbabis
Pretty impressive how the mooney wing basically swallowed it. Very unrealistic test, but if it did happen that way, there would be plenty of fuel air and ignition sorce to make quite a pyrotechnic display.
kitaq
kitaq 0
I'd love to see a Mooney go 200 knots
tongo
Well, well, then it is your lucky day! You get your wish. The Mooney Acclaim AND Mooney Bravo will cruise over 200 knots.
kurtbrunken
That is ridiculous, No blades, they just 'shot' the drone at the wing. Might as well have been a 5lb brick. "This is the result of a brick thrown at an aircraft" Please tell me this wasn't funded with public grant dollars
tongo
What is ridiculous is your comment. There is a big difference between a drone and a brick.
kurtbrunken
Did you see the video? Do you even understand the tone of my comment? The troll is strong with you.
tongo
The tone of your comment started with an accusation of ridiculous. So did mine. Do you even understand the tone of my comment?
bentwing60
Mooney aircraft are not thin skinned airplanes and you virtually never read about them coming apart in flight due to the one piece spar and a beefy empennage. If that is the result of this trial, I would hate to see what it would do to an LSA. Granted, they are slower, but how fast is the Quad goin?
joelwiley
From the article:

The researchers set about designing a test to mimic a midair collision between a drone and an airplane at an impact speed of 238 miles per hour.

Following calibration work to ensure proper control of the speed, orientation, and trajectory of the drone, the team launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft, a small piston-powered, propeller-driven aircraft.

Ir sounds like the drone was launched somewhat like the FAA Chicken Cannon rather than controlled drone flight. I wonder what it did to the structural integrity of the wing and if it could continue flight.

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!