Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Watch What Happens When A Drone Slams Into An Airplane Wing (sacbee.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the flight-tests dept.

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.

15 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Instead of a wing on a small private aircraft by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Instead of a wing on a small private aircraft by Goldenhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't know what you are writing about. I have worked for 30 years in the aerospace field (specifically testing high performance aircraft). There is a HUGE difference between soft tissue and metal parts and highly-dense batteries. Any turbine engine would be utterly destroyed by a 1-2 lb drone.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    2. Re:Instead of a wing on a small private aircraft by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      I included commentary on this in a video I posted almost three weeks ago. The bottom line is that they chose an absolute worst-case scenario, something that has prompted DJI (the maker of the drone used) to demand that the video and findings be withdrawn (copy of the letter).

      It seems that this test may have been more about promoting the university than gaining actual scientific evidence (note the prominence of the university's name on the wing under test). This is supported by a comment on the video I posted in which one viewer states: "University of dayton is seriously the lowest ranked school in the state of ohio, people from dayton...it is mostly trailer parks. All the women there know how to work on cars. Not a bad thing if you need a clutch rebuilt. Dayton isnt actually a city anymore but now a poor suburb of Cincinnati (best city in the world)"

    3. Re:Instead of a wing on a small private aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to Sully

    4. Re:Instead of a wing on a small private aircraft by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting video. Thanks.

      It looks like the blade fragments are still retained within the cowl, is that the case in the simulation?

      If that is the case, while you would loose an engine that would not be catastrophic but just another engine failure in flight.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  2. Looks easily survivable to me by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    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.

  3. The drone manufacturer's response by bluescrn · · Score: 4, Informative

    DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video: https://www.dji.com/newsroom/n...

    1. Re:The drone manufacturer's response by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      DJI's complaint was based, among other things, on the video testing impact at a combined speed of 238 MPH rather than what the letter admitted would be a possible combined speed of 233.5 MPH (~200 MPH for the Mooney M20j, which was actually marketed as the "201" for that reason, and 33.5MPH for the drone). Big whoop. I have significant doubts that decreasing the impact speed by 2% would make a material difference in the frankly shocking amount of damage to the wing shown in the video.

      The rest of the complaints in the letter essentially devolve into the testing not being constrained enough (e.g., a bunch of technical arguments about how rare that sort of combined airspeed should be in the real world, how it supposedly exceeds the FAA impact testing standards, etc.) I recall similar wailing from the automakers when researchers first started testing offset collisions rather than the currently government-sanctioned and unrealistic direct head-on collisions.

  4. Isn't this obvious? by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

    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".)

  5. Science requires facts by Alascom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Science requires facts by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

      What if there were two moneys, pulling the drone using a bit of string?

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  6. Re:Scare mongering by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The scaling question probably has to do with the construction of the wing, not the net mass of the aircraft. The video shows the drone penetrating the sheet metal covering of the wing; I don't know if that would be more robust on an airliner, but I expect it is. However that leaves the question of the effect on an airliner, which travels at greater speeds, quite open.

    The thing about research is a lot of the time what you're looking for isn't answers, you're looking for questions that should be asking, or trying to justify funding for questions you think need addressing.

    Now bird strikes have been part of aviation since the beginning, but drone strikes are a new phenomenon. Are they pretty much analogous, or do we need to start thinking about drones differently? What the researchers actually did here was compare the damage done by a simulated bird strike to a drone strike, and found that the nature of the damage in their test rig was different. Birds made a bigger hole in the skin, drones made a bigger dent in the wing's structural members. This doesn't autoamtically scale to something like an A380, but it makes sense to do a scaled down test with cheap surplus light aviation wings before applying for funding to do it on a larger scale.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. The Mooney M20 has wooden wings... by dyfet · · Score: 2

    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...

  8. Not obvious at all by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    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.

  9. Still more danger from other humans & ac by caseih · · Score: 2

    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.