What happens when Quad Copter drone hits an Aircraft Wing

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft."

The obvious answer is to not fly so fast.
 
Wow. 238mph? I guess the newest Mooneys will fly that fast. But the 172 I fly sure isn't.
 
Yeah at more than 200 knots. But you’re unlikely to hit one at that speed. I’d like to see the test at 90 knots, a more likely speed you’d be going where you might encounter a drone.

I question why you’d choose that speed other than for effect.
 
Last edited:
Closing speed could be higher than airplane airspeed alone. DJI says 44 mph for Phantom 4
 
Salty said:
Yeah at more than 200 knots. But you’re unlikely to hit one at that speed. I’d like to see the test at 90 knots, a more likely speed you’d be going where you might encounter a drone.

I question why you’d choose that speed other than for effect.
Click to expand...
It is sort of a "worst case" scenario. But I'll bet 120 kts. closing speed in a 172 windscreen will apply a load of hurt.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
It is sort of a "worst case" scenario. But I'll bet 120 kts. closing speed in a 172 windscreen will apply a load of hurt.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But let’s see it.
 
The result was pretty much exactly what I would have expected to happen. Hole in the leading edge with pieces inside the nose rib area. I'd be interested to see what the spar looks like and I'd be surprised if there's anything more than a mark on it. Interesting video but I will make this bold statement. You show me a pilot who can't get it on the ground safely with that amount of damage on the wing and I'll show you a pilot that has no business flying anything.
 
Little quad copter...get something a little bigger, say about the size of a Canadian goose, and two of them can bring down an airbus.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The result was pretty much exactly what I would have expected to happen. Hole in the leading edge with pieces inside the nose rib area. I'd be interested to see what the spar looks like and I'd be surprised if there's anything more than a mark on it. Interesting video but I will make this bold statement. You show me a pilot who can't get it on the ground safely with that amount of damage on the wing and I'll show you a pilot that has no business flying anything.
Click to expand...

They did report damage to the spar but didn’t specify how severe that damage was.

“In a test designed to mimic a midair collision at 238 miles per hour, researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft. The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the structure, damaging its main spar. “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.”
https://www.udayton.edu/blogs/udri/18-09-13-risk-in-the-sky.php
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The result was pretty much exactly what I would have expected to happen. Hole in the leading edge with pieces inside the nose rib area. I'd be interested to see what the spar looks like and I'd be surprised if there's anything more than a mark on it. Interesting video but I will make this bold statement. You show me a pilot who can't get it on the ground safely with that amount of damage on the wing and I'll show you a pilot that has no business flying anything.
Click to expand...

If you watch the full video and report, there was substantial damage to the spar. Not saying it would be completely unflyable, but with unknown structural damage it could be hard to say how the aircraft will perform, or stay together. It also doesn't answer the question about a strike to the windshield or propeller. I am glad to see this testing being done. I have heard too many non-aviators that operate drones that do not think there is any risk of damage to manned aircraft from their "little" drone.
 
So I think it would be interesting to see that wing in a wind tunnel mimicking 238mph flight. Bet that’s going to open up a bit more.
At least if you get to keep the drone.
 
... and what happens if that part of the wing included a fuel tank? The battery in that former drone certainly has enough energy to light off the fuel as it splashes out.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You show me a pilot who can't get it on the ground safely with that amount of damage on the wing and I'll show you a pilot that has no business flying anything.
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? No telling what else might be damaged. For instance, the aileron cables on my plane run right along the leading edge. You'll already have an asymmetrical condition from the big hole, and possibly a ruptured fuel tank. Why if ailerons jam, and the rudder isn't able to counteract, and you get distracted by pax...
 
JohnAJohnson said:
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? No telling what else might be damaged. For instance, the aileron cables on my plane run right along the leading edge. You'll already have an asymmetrical condition from the big hole, and possibly a ruptured fuel tank. Why if ailerons jam, and the rudder isn't able to counteract, and you get distracted by pax...
Click to expand...

I'm sure that guy can easily land a plane which was hit by a drone that took out the cables going to the aileron. And maybe even caused the aileron to be fully deflected.

And spar damage which maybe caused the outboard portion of the wing to fold up? Not a problem for pilot who's a real man.
 
bflynn said:
Little quad copter...get something a little bigger, say about the size of a Canadian goose, and two of them can bring down an airbus.
Click to expand...

I hit two Canada geese while flying a C-207. One on each wing. And flew it back to base. Yes, both wings had dents in them like it was hit by a high speed basketball. But the geese were flying a whole lot slower than 238 MPH.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? No telling what else might be damaged. For instance, the aileron cables on my plane run right along the leading edge.
Click to expand...
Well you'd be in deep do do then if you took that drone hit.

Of course, you'd be in deep do do if you took this hit too.
acy-bittern1.jpg


Of this one.
images


Or this one.
IMG-20161023-WA0007.jpg



So if that were to come to pass, the your plane was then uncontrollable due to the impaired aileron cables, who made the mistake in that scenario? The bird? Or the person that decided the aileron cables should go in the leading edge?

Its a redundant question. This line of conversation misses the point I was making. Which is that this video will no doubt end up being used to play on the general publics already existing fear of scary drones and scary airplanes. And when it does, those using it will fail to mention that lots of small planes have landed safely after suffering very similar looking wing damage.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
You mean Canada goose. Sorry, that’s neither here nor there, just couldn’t help myself.
Click to expand...

Branta canadensis. But I am not hung up over calling things by archaic names. If you are then on the coming Samhain holiday I recommend that you carve and put out your pompions, but do not hand out potherbs as treats...the moppets will NOT like them.

http://languagehat.com/canadian-geese/
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So if that were to come to pass, the your plane was then uncontrollable due to the impaired aileron cables, who made the mistake in that scenario? The bird? Or the person that decided the aileron cables should go in the leading edge?

Its a redundant question. This line of conversation misses the point I was making. Which is that this video will no doubt end up being used to play on the general publics already existing fear of scary drones and scary airplanes. And when it does, those using it will fail to mention that lots of small planes have landed safely after suffering very similar looking wing damage.
Click to expand...

The video and the research was done to inform pilots, not the general public. Apparently, your takeaway was that drones don't represent a threat to someone wearing an A-2 and Ray-Bans.

While the results in the video conformed to "exactly" what you expected, the carefully controlled experiment may not be duplicated in real life.

You go right ahead with your bravado about real pilots. One day a drone will strike the leading edge of an aircraft, and it won't be in such a precise manner, that is piercing the weak skin without hitting a rib and compromising the spar.

Instead it'll hit the rib outboard of the strut, it will damage the spar, and while the pilot is frantically trying to assess the damage and see if it affected control of the aircraft, the outboard section of the wing will fold up.

The outcome will then be a little different from the video.

Your apparent complete rejection of the dangers that drones represent is ill considered, to say the least.
 
bflynn said:
Little quad copter...get something a little bigger, say about the size of a Canadian goose, and two of them can bring down an airbus.
Click to expand...
That's about a mid-sized quad copter. And fortunately, the trend with drones is that they are getting smaller and smaller.
 
Wow! Never again will I fly my drone into the approach path of aircraft :p
 
tawood said:
That's about a mid-sized quad copter. And fortunately, the trend with drones is that they are getting smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd suggest somewhat otherwise. While on the light consumer end that may be true, with the guys that really want to do photo work and go up high, there are bigger drones, too. I think my Phantom 4 would probably do MORE rather than less damage than that Phantom 2 with more mass in the battery and more aerodynamic efficiency and there are other guys moving to things like Inspire and Matrice drones that are easily twice as dangerous and faster than that.
 
Still not sure what you are trying to say, but I think I got it. If a 327 bulb goes out and a plane goes down into a swamp, we probably shouldn't blame General Electric, or Lockheed, or the swamp itself. Point is, when [even minor] things go wrong, we can be distracted even though the event itself (L1011 gear light in the above example) shouldn't bring down the plane, bad things can still happen. A C-141 was lost going into Cairo West many years ago because the tired pilot saw a red light and banked hard to avoid it. The light was on top of a tower 10 miles away. All died when he couldn't recover. A drone in the airport environment can easily do the same even if you don't hit it. Anyone who travels on airliners, or any of us should absolutely be concerned about drones because they can bring down planes. Birds too of course, but we mitigate as best as we can and most birds do too, but of course some species like eagles will actually attack a big, fast plane and we should probably wipe out those species just in case :)

Juliet Hotel said:
Well you'd be in deep do do then if you took that drone hit.

Of course, you'd be in deep do do if you took this hit too.
acy-bittern1.jpg


Of this one.
images


Or this one.
IMG-20161023-WA0007.jpg



So if that were to come to pass, the your plane was then uncontrollable due to the impaired aileron cables, who made the mistake in that scenario? The bird? Or the person that decided the aileron cables should go in the leading edge?

Its a redundant question. This line of conversation misses the point I was making. Which is that this video will no doubt end up being used to play on the general publics already existing fear of scary drones and scary airplanes. And when it does, those using it will fail to mention that lots of small planes have landed safely after suffering very similar looking wing damage.
Click to expand...
 
bflynn said:
So...not in your engines.
Click to expand...

No, not in the engine, I was in a C-207 that day. One hit the left wing right outside the strut, the other hit the right wing right outside the strut. A solid thump thump.

455 Bravo Uniform said:
You mean Canada goose. Sorry, that’s neither here nor there, just couldn’t help myself.
Click to expand...

I saw that as well. They are a species, not a citizenship .... :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Same with ''Horny toads''...not toads, but lizards. However the masses like myself still call the Mexican Horned Lizard a horny toad......And with the number of baby ones I saw this summer, they must really be ''horney''.... But I digress.....back to the regular programing.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Still not sure what you are trying to say, but I think I got it. If a 327 bulb goes out and a plane goes down into a swamp, we probably shouldn't blame General Electric, or Lockheed, or the swamp itself. Point is, when [even minor] things go wrong, we can be distracted even though the event itself (L1011 gear light in the above example) shouldn't bring down the plane, bad things can still happen. A C-141 was lost going into Cairo West many years ago because the tired pilot saw a red light and banked hard to avoid it. The light was on top of a tower 10 miles away. All died when he couldn't recover. A drone in the airport environment can easily do the same even if you don't hit it. Anyone who travels on airliners, or any of us should absolutely be concerned about drones because they can bring down planes. Birds too of course, but we mitigate as best as we can and most birds do too, but of course some species like eagles will actually attack a big, fast plane and we should probably wipe out those species just in case :)
Click to expand...

Eastern 401 still remains in my mind as one of the biggest crew screwups in history. Hard to believe that they allowed that light bulb and their preoccupation with it to kill over 100 people.

I’m not very familiar with the 141 crash that you mentioned. Ill need to read up on that.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Actually, I'd suggest somewhat otherwise. While on the light consumer end that may be true, with the guys that really want to do photo work and go up high, there are bigger drones, too. I think my Phantom 4 would probably do MORE rather than less damage than that Phantom 2 with more mass in the battery and more aerodynamic efficiency and there are other guys moving to things like Inspire and Matrice drones that are easily twice as dangerous and faster than that.
Click to expand...
True, but my concern, when it comes to drones "mixing it up" with aircraft, are knuckleheads using consumer drones. And consumer drones are getting much smaller.
 
3393RP said:
The video and the research was done to inform pilots, not the general public. Apparently, your takeaway was that drones don't represent a threat to someone wearing an A-2 and Ray-Bans.
Click to expand...
The reason the video was created is not in question. My comment was speculation on how it will end up being used. And it was just that, speculation. Based on nothing but my own hunch. Seems you have an issued with that and I can understand why. Making a claim that something will happen even though no there is no evidence of it is something that tends to annoy people unless of course the subject is religious in nature, then speculation is perfectly acceptable but I digress. As for me feeling drones don't represent a threat to GA aircraft, not true. If they share the same airspace, they are obviously a threat on some level. My comment was simply pointing out that the damage demonstrated in that test would not and should not bring down that airplane. Could the plane come down if you then couple that with pilot error? Absolutely. Which is exactly what I said what I did. When an otherwise flyable and controllable airplane crashes, it ain't the fault of the bird or the drone or the asteroid that hit the wing.

One day a drone will strike the leading edge of an aircraft, and it won't be in such a precise manner, that is piercing the weak skin without hitting a rib and compromising the spar.

Instead it'll hit the rib outboard of the strut, it will damage the spar, and while the pilot is frantically trying to assess the damage and see if it affected control of the aircraft, the outboard section of the wing will fold up.

The outcome will then be a little different from the video.
Click to expand...
Well gee the test showed exactly none of that so whose speculating now? Drones are cheap and there was still lots of undamaged wing there. Seems it would have been pretty easy to throw one at a rib if they wanted to. Makes you wonder why they didn't. Probably would have been interesting to throw one at the windshield while the prop was making cruise power while they were at it.

And while we're on the subject of flaws in the study design, what was the thinking behind the speed? I can see a big engine Mooney producing that kind of closure rate, but not down on the deck where you stand the greatest chance of finding a DJI Phantom. I'd like to see an impact at something closer to 150mph which far more likely than 238mph. Speculating again but hard to imagine the same level of damage being produced when the impact is 88mph slower.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Eastern 401 still remains in my mind as one of the biggest crew screwups in history. Hard to believe that they allowed that light bulb and their preoccupation with it to kill over 100 people.

I’m not very familiar with the 141 crash that you mentioned. Ill need to read up on that.
Click to expand...

Wish I could remember more details. But it happened when I was stationed at McChord AFB and it was one of ours, so 62nd MAW. Could have been an A or a B (we were converting them at the time), and it would have been around the time St Helens blew, 80-82 or so. We lost a couple within a short period, the other plowing into one of the Olympic Mountains coming back home from the Pacific.
 
Zeldman said:
I hit two Canada geese while flying a C-207. One on each wing. And flew it back to base. Yes, both wings had dents in them like it was hit by a high speed basketball. But the geese were flying a whole lot slower than 238 MPH.
Click to expand...
Lucky guy. I was on the SAR mission that found these kids: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=43643 "Probable Cause: An in-flight collision with at least one Canada goose, and the resulting damage to the left stabilator that caused the airplane to become uncontrollable." "Fatalities: 2"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top