Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Drone vs. Aircraft

Sobering and more. Keep in mind that control linkages, fuel lines, etc are potentially running horizontally along that wing. Also at speed, the gaping hole could cause catastrophic failure along the wing.
 
A lot of times the physics of an event such as this are lost on some because they tend to think in a linear fashion. I was watching a video years ago where some of the conspiracy theorists about 911 held the argument that an aluminum wing could not just cut through steel beams as we saw happen. Another example is the space shuttle having a hole punched through its leading edge by a piece of insulation and as we saw; that turned out catastrophically. To anyone who thinks; because these items are made from plastic, and assume they therefore cannot harm a general aviation aircraft - question: Would you let a major league pitcher through a water balloon at your face? After all its just water.

E = Mc2
 
But we live in a world where physics don’t fit my beliefs including things like the earth is round. I saw a frikin mavic fly over me and into the clouds. The clouds where at mountain top level which is 5k feet minimum. The spot they were in is the approach flight path for TIA here. Unbelievable.
 
Can we all please agree that this video does not represent a real life scenario. The actual collision energy would be 1/4 the energy at best! This video shows deliberate excessive damage in an unrealistic scenario. Please, this video is over sensationalizing what would “ACTUALLY” occur and should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Can we all please agree that this video does not represent a real life scenario. The actual collision energy would be 1/4 the energy at best! This video shows deliberate excessive damage in an unrealistic scenario. Please, this video is over sensationalizing what would “ACTUALLY” occur and should be taken with a grain of salt.
In what way is this unrealistic?
If the small plane flying at 200+ mph strikes a DJI drone with its wing, I believe what you see in the video is what would happen. It doesn't matter that the drone doesn't fly that fast, the relative speed difference is what counts.
Now, if it were a Yuneec drone, the results would be entirely differento_O.
 
In what way is this unrealistic?
If the small plane flying at 200+ mph strikes a DJI drone with its wing, I believe what you see in the video is what would happen. It doesn't matter that the drone doesn't fly that fast, the relative speed difference is what counts.
Now, if it were a Yuneec drone, the results would be entirely differento_O.

A. The video was created contrary to established FAA crash test parameters and the video was not part of a legit scientific query and the testing facility did not release any data on their results.

B. Cruise speed in a Moody is 140-160Kts, the test parameters were for 238mph again in no shape or form would this impact shown be realistic making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for these two aircraft to meet midair and this be the result.

If you don’t believe what I’m saying I implore you to use basic calculus to discover these results yourself or simply read what DJI has already publicly released In response? Good day basic humans lol
 
A. The video was created contrary to established FAA crash test parameters and the video was not part of a legit scientific query and the testing facility did not release any data on their results.

B. Cruise speed in a Moody is 140-160Kts, the test parameters were for 238mph again in no shape or form would this impact shown be realistic making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for these two aircraft to meet midair and this be the result.

If you don’t believe what I’m saying I implore you to use basic calculus to discover these results yourself or simply read what DJI has already publicly released In response? Good day basic humans lol

Seriously? LOL

Just because you want that to be true does NOT make it fact. Those #’s are very realistic even though they don’t fit your and DJI’s narrative.

This puts DJI's stance into perspective, they are WRONG IMHO:
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman

Also explain to us how a 5lb piece of foam destroyed one of our Space Shuttles several years ago. I’m sure you’ll have a logical explanation how that’s also not possible or realistic as well.

We look forward to your explanation sir.
 
Seriously? LOL

Just because you want that to be true does NOT make it fact. Those #’s are very realistic even though they don’t fit your and DJI’s narrative.

This puts DJI's stance into perspective, they are WRONG IMHO:
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman

Also explain to us how a 5lb piece of foam destroyed one of our Space Shuttles several years ago. I’m sure you’ll have a logical explanation how that’s also not possible or realistic as well.

We look forward to your explanation sir.
Big Al,

I just explained my side with sobering numbers and factual statements. And you come back with a debate about comparing a shuttle moving thousands of miles per hour to a cheap airplane leading edge? It’s evident you want more drone restrictions so keep it up with that attitude you have. People who despise drones are lapping this video up and loving it and it’s apparent you’re on their side or you wouldn’t drink the Kool Aide. Also, you don’t speak for everyone so what’s with the “We”!? Stand up by yourself next time. Take care. [emoji106]
 
Last edited:
Big Al,

I just explained my side with sobering numbers and factual statements. And you come back with a debate about comparing a shuttle moving thousands of miles per hour to a cheap airplane leading edge? It’s evident you want more drone restrictions so keep it up with that attitude you have. People who despise drones are lapping this video up and loving it and it’s apparent you’re on their side or you wouldn’t drink the Kool Aide. Take care. [emoji106]


Did you even take the time to read the article I linked? I say most likely not because it doesn't fit your narrative. That article has REAL #'s that support the test video. Do you honestly think that no small General Aviation aircraft travel @ 200mph? What happens when an aircraft heavier than a Phantom is used for such testing? The Inspire 2 uses dual batteries and the Matrice 600 hauls 6 batteries and can carry a 10lb camera payload. If they used that as a test subject would you also refute the results?

As a General Aviation pilot and as a RPIC with over 4 decades of sUAS experience I am on the side of SAFETY. Yes I support more drone restrictions especially for those who feel like their "hobby/toy" sUAS can't damage a big bad manned aircraft in any way. If we, as a group, could police ourselves and prevent sUAS to manned aircraft incursions I would be all for that but we CAN'T! Too many people think the laws shouldn't apply to them (insert any number of various reasons in this section) or feel like their sUAS can't damage a manned aircraft so the danger isn't feasible. WRONG!

Ok let's skip the foam/Space Shuttle scenario (which is still relevant even though you don't want to admit that) and go to the Phantom4 vs UH-60 Black Hawk Helo. Neither were traveling at "unrealistic" speeds yet when the sUAS impacted the Rotor Blades it did enough damage to warrant total blade replacements (approx $250K) and thank goodness the engine's intake grid (debris guard) kept the fragments from entering into the engine and doing more damage. Now before you go off and say, "It just scratched them and they were replaced as an extreme precaution" understand this is a COMBAT built aircraft. Imagine if the same collision occurred on a site seeing helo..... What about a Robinson R22 or even a Mosquito series of helicopters?

Just because you insist on living with your head in the sand and in a perpetual state of denial doesn't change FACTS in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Pilot and AH-1G
Did you even take the time to read the article I linked? I say most likely not because it doesn't fit your narrative. That article has REAL #'s that support the test video. Do you honestly think that no small General Aviation aircraft travel @ 200mph? What happens when an aircraft heavier than a Phantom is used for such testing? The Inspire 2 uses dual batteries and the Matrice 600 hauls 6 batteries and can carry a 10lb camera payload. If they used that as a test subject would you also refute the results?

As a General Aviation pilot and as a RPIC with over 4 decades of sUAS experience I am on the side of SAFETY. Yes I support more drone restrictions especially for those who feel like their "hobby/toy" sUAS can't damage a big bad manned aircraft in any way. If we, as a group, could police ourselves and prevent sUAS to manned aircraft incursions I would be all for that but we CAN'T! Too many people think the laws shouldn't apply to them (insert any number of various reasons in this section) or feel like their sUAS can't damage a manned aircraft so the danger isn't feasible. WRONG!

Ok let's skip the foam/Space Shuttle scenario (which is still relevant even though you don't want to admit that) and go to the Phantom4 vs UH-60 Black Hawk Helo. Neither were traveling at "unrealistic" speeds yet when the sUAS impacted the Rotor Blades it did enough damage to warrant total blade replacements (approx $250K) and thank goodness the engine's intake grid (debris guard) kept the fragments from entering into the engine and doing more damage. Now before you go off and say, "It just scratched them and they were replaced as an extreme precaution" understand this is a COMBAT built aircraft. Imagine if the same collision occurred on a site seeing helo..... What about a Robinson R22 or even a Mosquito series of helicopters?

Just because you insist on living with your head in the sand and in a perpetual state of denial doesn't change FACTS in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
 

Attachments

  • 35cf9f1c2fb09fdcc41bca8b4bb7e661.jpg
    35cf9f1c2fb09fdcc41bca8b4bb7e661.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 15


I completely agree.

BTW awesome shots and video you made of the Fire Dept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AH-1G
There are two different worlds of reality, theory taught in school, reality taught in the real world when real and unexpected events will and do take place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
Can we all please agree that this video does not represent a real life scenario. The actual collision energy would be 1/4 the energy at best! This video shows deliberate excessive damage in an unrealistic scenario. Please, this video is over sensationalizing what would “ACTUALLY” occur and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I disagree that this video is unrealistic. If you want to point out speed of the aircraft that donated the wing and point out that this specific aircraft and drone collision could not happen then you are arguing around the facts.

The Space Shuttle disaster is in fact a perfect example of whats going on here. In that case, the engineers saw it happen on the playback but even they could not in their wildest imaginations have envisioned how the sequence of events would play out.

This isn't about a DJI drone, it wouldn't matter which one was used in the test. The point is: Yes a small plastic drone can cause significant damage to a general aviation aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and AH-1G
Can we all please agree that this video does not represent a real life scenario. The actual collision energy would be 1/4 the energy at best! This video shows deliberate excessive damage in an unrealistic scenario. Please, this video is over sensationalizing what would “ACTUALLY” occur and should be taken with a grain of salt.

What gives you the expertise of your comment? Aren't you in college? Do you have real world experience of every know impact that could occur?

If you plan on getting an Eng. degree, you should never make a statement
"this video is over sensationalizing what would “ACTUALLY” occur and should be taken with a grain of salt".
unless you have actual prove of disprove their findings.

Any one can do the math, but in real life math can get warped.
In Architecture, Eng's calculate load, in aviation, Eng's calculate load both using math. Ahhh, but what has happened many times, failure because of the unexpected. Math is not always perfect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
As another general aviation and RPIC pilot I have no problems with the test results, whether they followed FAA bird strike test procedures or not.

A Mooney 201’s max speed, or Vne, is 201mph. A Mooney 232’s Vne is 232mph. A 260 Comanche easily busts 200mph in cruise (I’ve flown them faster), as do the composite skinned Lancair’s and Cirrus general aviation aircraft. Let’s not forget the fast and low flying helicopters. Leaving 200mph out of the argument, many general aviation aircraft fly descents and the approaches well above normal cruise speeds, especially if flying an ILS approach in busy terminal airspace. They are frequently told to “ keep your speed up on final due to faster following traffic”. My C-152 had an average cruise speed of 100 knots but I always flew a 130 knot descent. A drone flying 35mph colliding with the 152 wing would have the combined energy from the speed of both aircraft. The speed equation would work out to 187mph.

What would happen after a drone broke through the skin of the wing is the only real question. If it went through the wing of a Grumman Tiger or Cheetah it might impact and hole a fuel bladder. If the drones battery shorted during impact there would be a fuel fire that would not be survivable because the airplane could not be landed fast enough to save the day. If it impacted the control rods for a Mooney’s ailerons it could cause loss of aircraft flight control.

Thinking that only an approved method test will provide accurate info is foolish. I knew a truck driver killed by a box of Kleenex that stuck the side of his head in a 45mph traffic accident. That condition certainly was never part of automobile safety testing yet the truck driver is still dead.

BTW, the federally mandated max airspeed in a terminal control area is 200 knots, which works out to 230mph, and that speed is flown all the time by different aircraft. The max speed below 18,000’ outside if a terminal control area is 250 knots and is also flown thousands of times a day in this country. Drones are absolutely a serious threat to manned aviation and anyone thinking they are not because a serious event has not happened yet has serious problems with their reasoning processes, or lacks any knowledge relative to the construction and operation of manned aircraft. They also don’t realize most fly airplanes to get from point A to point B as fast as possible and unless trying to save fuel fly faster than “average” cruise speed.
 
Last edited:
A drone can strike a Boeing 767 and if the strike is just right it can cause damage to the plane that may surprise anyone
 
We should just never be at the altitude of planes. If you want high aerial photos and video, get a pilots license and buy a real airplane. It’s the ability to bypass all that and get those type of shots that’s overly tempting for many. At this rate, our firmware will be forced to stop you at 400’ AGL no matter what unless DJI has unlimited funds to lobby Congress and reverse the new rules which is pretty doubtful.

I never go off my property at home but as stated earlier, someone in my subdivision has a Mavic and they think it’s ok to be at descent level in our airports approach path. Meanwhile, my immediate neighbor has come over and yelled at my wife over these incursions of property and public space. I told her next time, ask him to provide the tail number of the offending drone because mine are visible and I’m willing to take my fines or anything if one of my drones breaks the rules and crashes. For all those thinking they can fly like they choose anytime I wonder if they even acknowledge the FAA? I’ll err on the side of ten bucks and keep getting my proper numbers and abide by the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eagle's Eye Video
We should just never be at the altitude of planes. If you want high aerial photos and video, get a pilots license and buy a real airplane. It’s the ability to bypass all that and get those type of shots that’s overly tempting for many. At this rate, our firmware will be forced to stop you at 400’ AGL no matter what unless DJI has unlimited funds to lobby Congress and reverse the new rules which is pretty doubtful.

I never go off my property at home but as stated earlier, someone in my subdivision has a Mavic and they think it’s ok to be at descent level in our airports approach path. Meanwhile, my immediate neighbor has come over and yelled at my wife over these incursions of property and public space. I told her next time, ask him to provide the tail number of the offending drone because mine are visible and I’m willing to take my fines or anything if one of my drones breaks the rules and crashes. For all those thinking they can fly like they choose anytime I wonder if they even acknowledge the FAA? I’ll err on the side of ten bucks and keep getting my proper numbers and abide by the rules.

As DJI has been heavily lobbying governments around the world to adopt their flight limitation software I seriously doubt DJI will do anything to remove altitude limitations. There’s too much money to be made in software licensing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval