Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Grae, Mar 2, 2016.
Drone near-misses prompt calls for plane strike research - BBC News
I could save them a fortune in research cost, drone gets into engine = not a good day for passengers?
And according to the BBC report, if I take my camera off the drone I can fly over populated area's?
They shoot frozen geese into jet engines as part of the testing, they dump 3000 gallons of water per second into jet engines as part of testing... It could gobble up a drone without blinking an eye.
Urban legend created by stories of the U.S borrowing a British chicken cannon for locomotive windshield testing... in contemporary times the birds are not frozen when shot into jet engines.
I was wrong about the gallons of water per seconds. It was 4000 tons per minute.and the Bird issue... Looks like it was a "Chicken Gun"
More testing... these engines are pretty robust.
This is true but until the tests have been run and they have statistical data to back up any hypothesis the public perception is exactly what the media wants it to be. IMHO one of the best things to happen would be broad testing across several aircraft from small single engine GA up to huge commercial airlines and prove what will or will NOT happen.
Until we have the hard #'s the media gets to paint whatever horrible and tragic outcome they want and John Q. Public will drink the kool-aid and support the media campaign lock, stock, and barrel.
Don't see too many chickens at 37500 feet, unless it's the trolley dolly serving lunch
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
I think you misunderstood what she said... 4 1/2 tons of water per minute. That's still a lot of water but 4,000 tons would be dumping an Olympic Pool into the engine every 80 seconds or so.
This makes sense and I hope thorough testing is done with drone strikes to many different sizes of aircraft. Gut feeling tells me the commercial airliners will have no problem tolerating a 3-lb. Phantom strike to either engine or body, but there could be moderate to serious damage to smaller craft like helicopters and two-seat Cessna's.
Great posts, folks! Yeah, I think we'll be fine. And radio controlled planes etc. have been around for years!
Last time I checked, chickens were not equipped with LiPo batteries ... However, I've seen a 737 engine get taken out by an eagle - several million dollars in damage. But we need to do the testing as the first three letters in the word assumption are .... Still and all I think we all agree that UAVs and commercial airliners ought to stay away from each other.
I agree. There have been documented (and some recorded) cases of bird strikes on small GA that caused total windscreen failure and the mass contained in our LiPo battery would be significant to say the least. Most GA windscreens are not "Bird Strike" grade and a phantom at just the right area would most likely penetrate.
Yes for many years but not at the #'s we are seeing drones, at the altitudes we are seeing drones, and not at the LOCATIONS we are seeing drones. For years we've flown R/C planes but they were almost always flown at a flying field where GA didn't fly low and/or the flying field was known and avoided and usually (not always) less than 400'AGL. With this new technology practically every square foot of earth is a potential flying field and our drones are capable of going 1,000's of feet into the air because we no longer have to rely on our eyesight to maintain control of the aircraft . As much as I would like to place my bets on your statement I have to whole heartedly disagree. Today's R/C aircraft are night and day different than R/C aircraft were just 5 years ago.
I think DJI just found a buyer for all those shells with cracks in them! Throw in some old third party crappy lipo's and you're good to go!
I can't say I agree with your perception about R/C planes being only flown at a flying field cuz I remember seeing them being flown all over the place back in the 90's --- car shows, boat races, outdoor concerts, etc. But I will agree with you that most of the time those R/C planes were kept under 200 ft. AGL because there was no FPV or telemetry back then and so very little interaction with low-flying planes and heli's. However, with all these idiots taking their Phantoms up to 1000+ ft. AGL and muckin' around up there like clueless chumps --- I can easily see why real pilots are nervous.
I fly GA and yes it's a concern absolutely. On the flip side I have never seen a "Drone" from the air. I have flown over our local flying field (where I'm a member) and seen RC planes and Heli but that's exactly how it should be lol.
Tell that frozen turkey story to Capitan Sully
Show those videos to Sully Sullenberger and ask him what it was like to ditch in the Hudson River with 155 lives sitting behind him after losing two engines to birds.
I was a passenger in a light twin-engine (BO-105) helicopter in Chalkytsic, Alaska and we had a bird strike that caused one of the two engines to quit. It's not fun doing a run-in landing in a helicopter that doesn't have wheels. It was too heavy to hover on one engine. I think it was a sandpiper that caused the accident. A Phantom would have done the same thing. (and a tailrotor strike with a drone would probably be fatal)
A drone strike with any light passenger aircraft is a life-threatening incident.
Yes, you are right. We're all screwed.