Slashdot Mirror
Watch What Happens When A Drone Slams Into An Airplane Wing (sacbee.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Freshly Exhumed writes:
Researchers at the University of Dayton Research Institute [Impact Physics Lab] have shown in a video what can happen when a high-mass, consumer-level drone strikes the wing of an aircraft. They provide visual evidence of the damage a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 videography quadcopter would have upon the wing of a Mooney M20, a small, private aircraft. It is not difficult to extrapolate the effects upon an airliner in a similar situation. "We wanted to help the aviation community and the drone industry understand the dangers that even recreational drones can pose to manned aircraft before a significant event occurs," said Kevin Poormon of UDRI.
The video -- titled "Risk in the Sky?" -- simulates a collision at 238 mph in which the drone tears open the wing's leading edge.
"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 video -- titled "Risk in the Sky?" -- simulates a collision at 238 mph in which the drone tears open the wing's leading edge.
"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.
wouldn't it be better to test a drone crashing into the engines of an F-35, or a commercial airliner? That may be somewhat more relevant.
"It is not difficult to extrapolate the effects upon an airliner in a similar situation"
It kinda is, the M20 is a tiny little single engine thing that barely weighs over a ton.
Just when you thought the sky had stopped falling, scary drone stories return.
Good news, though, we don;t have to "extrapolate the effects upon an airliner". We have fucking video of EXACTLY what happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtArLIXZXRI
Provided no critical electrical or fuel lines are pierced in the process. And that looks like a worst-case scenario impact. That said, still wouldn't want to be flying on a plane that has a collision.
I'm sick of the lefts manipulation of reality. While there is potential for damage there is no genuine danger of stastical significance that anyone can point to evidencing a problem. This think of the children mentality has a huge cost to everyone. It results in all sorts of unessay cost of living increases which can then have a real negative impact to peoples well being or quality of life. Would you prefer a seat belt in your car or to be in constant pain because you can't afford treatment? Its not one regulation but the combination of many that have small and sometimes large costs which together have a major economic impact on everyones well being.
And more, how does this compare with a bird-strike test
Is this actually the worst case? How about hitting an engine or windscreen
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It didn't seem like that much of the wing was impacted, and the plane would still be flyable. For a jetliner with a much larger wing, even less of the lift surface would be impacted...
I was wondering in fact if the material of a larger jet would would be strong enough to come through the impact even better than the small plane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Guess that according to ignorant morons like you, we shouldn't work on creating a safe environment because there is statistically small chance of anything.
Ignorant idiots like you think that safety is not an issue as long as you are not the one getting hurt or killed.
^^^^Tiggered righty (aka R-NPC)
It just goes to show that DJI drones can't bring down a jetliner. Not even with CGI.
One wonders how many drones will impact at the preferred spot for maximizing damage. Still, this shows that drones, like birds, can harm aircraft. We have all known this. Nothing new. Banning drones is not the answer. Jailing people that fly them irresponsibly is an option. Much like drunk driving, we had to educate the population that drinking and driving was wrong.
DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video: https://www.dji.com/newsroom/n...
The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was caused by foam hitting the wing at high velocity. Though I suppose anyone younger than about 20 can be excused for not knowing materials in high-velocity impacts don't behave the way we're used to them behaving in everyday life. (e.g. metal bullets "splash".)
A Mooney M20 has a top speed of 165 knots and a typical cruising speed of around 130. If this is intended to provide facts why not show the results of a collision at 100, 130, or 165... nah, letâ(TM)s show almost 250 mph so we can hype the shit out of this and win the argument with people who donâ(TM)t actually know or understand what they are seeing. Maybe for the next test slam a drone into a perfectly perpendicular windshield at 1200 mph, thatâ(TM)ll really scare some folks into supporting more regulations.
Full disclosure: I am a pilot with hundreds of hours of experience. I also fly RC and build my own self piloting aircraft. I have some minor/small concerns about midair collisions with typical consumer drones, but I am far more worried about this power grab by the FAA and the long term impact it will have.
Yeah, lets use government to fix problems that don't exist yet rather than to fix actual problems.
The number of drones out there is dwarfed by the number of birds, and aircraft are already expected to survive bird strikes. In the unlikely event that an aircraft ever hits a drone, we can expect similar damage to a bird strike. Some common sense mitigation is fine - don't allow drones where there are low-flying aircraft. Next....
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
no drone flys that fast.
now if they would shoot the wing at a stationary drone,
then we can talk
sjees for some educated folk
them sure iz dum
LMIO
Why TF do you think you get fly your Cessna over my property?
There is a reason they choose a Mooney M20. It's one of the smallest possible piloted airplanes out there. It also has wooden wings! There is debate if this thing should even be considered safe to fly even before the question of drone strikes. I am calling this click bait and fake news!
http://www.mooneypilots.com/ma...
I think there are bird strikes experienced with heavier birds, and no crashing planes. Now show me this video with a deep-sea 10 wing, and I will be interested...
wouldn't it be better to test a drone crashing into the engines of an F-35, or a commercial airliner? That may be somewhat more relevant.
People flying drones would get arrested flying them near commercial airports or military bases. Also, those planes don't usually fly at altitudes that drones can reach.
And also keep in mind those planes cruise at twice the speed as a Mooney so the damage would even be more extensive - maybe loss of hundreds of lives if it takes out a wing. ....
And if I'm flying a Mooney under Bravo airspace over suburbia at 200knots, drones are a severe hazard. And some of the putzes who fly those things
Airplanes have been in danger of bird collisions since forever. Birds can weigh 2,1lb or more as well. There is no real difference to a drone.
If they have to survive bird collisions, they can survive drones.
Thank you for your opinion. Now I won't feel bad about feeling completely indifferent if your daughter ever dies in a plane crash, because her existence (and yours), compared to the seven-and-a-half billion people on earth, is also statistically insignificant.
TL;DR
yuns are fags mkay.
There is ZERO evidence of a problem. You are irrational and arguing to throw money down the toilet for no gain! Christ. If my daughter died in a plane crash it would be highly unlikely to be the result of a drone. And so what if it happens. Its still not the logical use of resources if you want to be safer. There are like actual uses of ones resources that have a fat greater likihood to lead to a safter society than this. So yes- I ask people to use there fucking brain for once and stop throwing money at shit where there are more negatives than positives. It wouldn't be that bad if it was individuals throwing there own money away and not forcing themselves on others. But that isn't where this is leading.
Same could be said and was of airline flight all along. Safe enough. Well investigating hazards and putting in place regulations and protocols is exactly what made it as safe as it is today. Sort of negates your point of not caring, no ?
KEN DOLL your lying will have consequences for your life and your family you dishonest faggot.
The destruction of Columbia was caused (as anyone actually reading the wikipedia entry you so thoughtfully linked will see) by reentry stress and super-heated plasma burning through a relatively small flaw in the heat shield. The cause of that damage was indeed foam, but trying to compare this to a drone strike on an aircraft traveling an order of magnitude slower and not experiencing reentry stress is just as much an exercise in sensationalism as the video currently in question is.
Also, it should be noted, since you place such an emphasis on the damaging item being foam (in a clear attempt to show that a seemingly dismissive substance can be extremely dangerous) that the kind of "foam" which caused the heat shield damage on Columbia was essentially the perfect item to cause the maximum damage. It was extremely strong foam, and very light. It's lower density meant that the air was able to decelerate it greatly causing a much higher velocity collision than something more dense would have, and its strength meant that it maintained cohesion long enough to cause damage.
And finally, your dismissive use of age and the assumption that the superior knowledge of someone older must surely validate your rather spurious comparison is a pretty great example, itself, of sophistry. Well done.
When my arguments fail I also turn to abusing the emotions of my adversary in an attempt to win by playing dirty.
That drones aren't allowed near major airports or air force bases but many small general aviation airports are near suburban areas where small aircraft like a Mooney routinely fly? The approach for one of the runways for my local GA airport is right over a big sub-division. We see drones frequently. I think what's keeping them low is that the people don't want to lose their drones - not that they care about other people as they love to disrupt ball games. (Had to replay a few points because some idiot had to fly his drone over the field during play distracting players.)
And that damage shown in the video is catastrophic. The leading edge is smashed and it will go through control lines. That plane is coming down - hopefully not on someone's head.
As these drones become more popular, I'm just waiting for the disaster. And as we have all experienced, when a disaster occurs, people want knee-jerk solutions that spoil it for everyone.
Old Fear Footage.
What's the ratio of birds and drones in the air? Should not we be worried about birds in the first place?
Another NPC triggered into a frothing-at-the-mouth, totally batshit-crazy, and yet totally impotent rage over things they don't even understand because nobody told them what to think and feel.
It's a good day! :)
Despite all this talk of the theoretical danger posed to manned aircraft, and even demonstrations like this, the risk from "drones" still pales in comparison to the existing risk from civil aviation pilots doing stupid things which happen all the time. For example traditional regulation requires aircraft to stay above 500' AGL unless near an airport (descending). Yet small aircraft regularly incur below that altitude without waivers. Furthermore casual pilots often ignore or don't read NOTAMs, causing interesting incidents. Xjet documented with video a plane from a local flight school that ignored the posted NOTAM about the airport being closed for a drag race and attempted to land anyway. Only after noticing equipment on the runway did the plane land on the grass next to it, running over several strung-out electrical cables. The folks setting up for the drag race gave him quite a talking to. This is but one of many incidents. Point is, talking about regulating toy RC vehicles is a bit silly when the rules governing full-scale aviation are breached regularly, or at least enforced unevenly, especially when such breaches are a far greater risk to life and property. If a small plane flied below 500 feet and encounters an rc aircraft, who's at fault? Obviously they will come down hard on the toy's owner. But the pilot was doing something wrong.
There are folks doing absolutely inappropriate and illegal things with drones, and documenting them on youtube. I think we already have enough laws to go after them and hit them hard for endangering the public.
It is not difficult to extrapolate the effects upon an airliner in a similar situation.
Just like my experiment where I threw a basketball in the path of a bicyclist. I can extrapolate what would happen to a garbage truck.
If they have to try this hard with such flagrant bullshit, I am inclined to think their premise must be false. Otherwise why would they need to exaggerate so much?
It seems to me that you've got an airstream going on as the plane's wing is driving through the atmosphere. Some air would go over the wing, some under. And there would be a certain turbulence at the division point? Would not this airstream deflect the drone up or down so it would not hit full head on or, at all?
The drone violently penetrated the space inside the wing where the fuel tank is. In real life this would have resulted not only in a hole but also in an explosion.
Maybe you should be on a list.
Solly, me no speak Muricadian.
The projected impact speed was 60 mph faster than the max speed of the aircraft involved. A bird at the same speed would also bring the plane down. Try it again at 110 kts. Closer to the real approach speed. Otherwise the test is a setup and does not reflect reality. What would happen if you drove your Volkswagen Beetle into a wall at 150 mph? Same kind of setup!
Yeah, lets use government to fix problems that don't exist yet rather than to fix actual problems.
The number of drones out there is dwarfed by the number of birds, and aircraft are already expected to survive bird strikes. In the unlikely event that an aircraft ever hits a drone, we can expect similar damage to a bird strike. Some common sense mitigation is fine - don't allow drones where there are low-flying aircraft. Next....
I down-modded you because what you posted is dangerously wrong. I'm a pilot with thousands of hours of flying experience, including some entertaining 'dogfights' with pelicans flying close to 10,000 feet above sea level, and many encounters with hawks, falcons and various water fowl.
Birds, any bird, is a master of the sky. They can and regularly do see and avoid aircraft very well. Pilot training, respect, and common sense compliments the mastery of our feathered aviators very well. Bird strikes are rare and are usually the result of some truly bizarre and unnecessary circumstances: i.e. flying low over a lake, or ingesting a flock of geese into B-1 bomber engines on a low-altitude training mission. Commercial flight that take off and climb over wetlands are commonly routed around bird habitats to avoid unnecessary encounters.
In densely congest airspace I have been asked by air traffic control to see if I can visually identify radar targets that are non-cooperative & not communicating - i.e. drones. I've also been asked by air traffic control to help with aircraft that do not respond in congested areas who have had inoperative transponders. A human in the loop - waving at someone and pointing at my ears/headset, has been invaluable. Distractions happen. Equipment failures happen. A basic pilots license and some common sense is all it takes, most of the time, to deal with a sub-optimal situation. There have been many documented close encounters with drones being operated irresponsibly, and without action, this problem will get worse and eventually kill people.
Drones that fly 400 feet above the ground and out of the line of sight of the 'operator' are not currently able to intelligently interact with the Airspace System, thus their operation must be limited for the safety of everyone. They are not a fake or manufactured problem.
See subject: c6gunner's name on this post as submitter yet signed "APK" (me) https://linux.slashdot.org/com...
I never say hosts cure Spectre/Meltdown OR it'd be on the Start64.com download page for it & I do NO MacOS X one!
* Too bad I publicly DESTROYED you c6gunner both here https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... + here https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your LIES/LIBEL + on hosts' technicals https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
APK
P.S.=> Due to you TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I NEVER SAID!: DNS in kernel? I never said that! I did get the BLOW YOU AWAY ON IT 4th link above! Hosts is tunable NATIVE resolver driven by tcpip.sys IN kernelmode in Windows + kernelmode diskcache in Linux + hosts resolves faster, safer vs. slow remote DNS that can be DOWN or DNS poisoned & NO DNS TRACKING for fav sites I use @ TOP of hosts for speed/security vs. DNS poisoning & rest are BLOCKED (who cares how 'fast' getting to them - I NEVER INTEND TO GET TO THEM, TTL does rest))
What's the long term solution here? A person with a reasonable command of engineering principles could, over the course of 10 years and maybe $150k, develop a credible device for downing low/slow aircraft with off the shelf components. In 20-30 years the ability to develop bio-weapons at home is going to be materially better than it is today. In 100 years the ability to cobble together a nuclear device might be within the realm of the home gamer. Is this the beginning of the Great Filter? It seems untenable without borg-like control of each individual.
APK: nobody cares.
Untrue. You care. You want others to think apk is spouting lies his program cures Intel spectre\meltdown. He even says it doesn't. He doesn't have a MacOS version either. All you do is lie trying to make him look poorly. You only do that to yourself.
This seems like the wrong approach to take. Why show what it looks like when a drone and an aircraft collide? There are already rules about operating things around airports... or are we to assume that drones are routinely flying at 20,000+ feet in normal flight patterns?
It seems that there are already laws that cover the physical issues with drones... so why all the made-up hand wringing? I am guessing that there are things that can be observed fairly easily with drones that were not so easily observed before and that some people do not want those things to be observed, possibly because they are illegal.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Please don't clog up Amazon's valuable airspace with your pathetic toys. If you ignore this warning we will have to stage a dramatic event to make it clear how important this airspace is to our business model.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
There are orders of magnitudes more Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or drones than traditional aircraft. The FAA has never wrapped their heads around how to manage this challenge. They speak of "Sense and Avoid" (a play on the joke of their current model which is "See and Avoid"). Anyone who has listened to the chatter on tower frequencies knows just how difficult it is to see other aircraft from aircraft, even large aircraft. The problem is their "Sense and Avoid" solutions will be expensive, heavy, and power hungry if the FAA is behind its development.
A better model would be to offer a challenge prize to anyone to come up with a low cost, lightweight, low power solution to allow UAS to safely coexist in the airspace that they and traditional aircraft operate in.