What Happens When a Drone Hits an Airplane Wing? - AIN

[@geeemmz4823]

Just slap it with flex tape

[@Electronic4081]

gee emmz THATS A LOT OF DAMAGE!

[@blackturbine]

I saw this plane in half

[@ther1rida]

GOLDEN COMMENT

[@nicks_adventures]

How will you do that in mid air

[@Sheetmaster-qq1lb]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@JameBlack]

Birds should be banned

[@bestamerica]

Bobo Momo Birds should be banned ' hi B M... birds are flying free free air... no banned on birds

[@WaterPython]

Y3s

[@sfsaviation]

bestamerica what the fuck are you saying?also it was a joke

[@msy6864]

Excuse me wtf

[@Nwyk]

bestamerica wooosh

[@lootbox289]

Well, it's obvious that planes shouldn't have wings. *_Problem solved_*

[@istoleurfaceha3527]

Kimiri3640 no he got the joke, he was predicting what someone somewhere would be wanting to say so that woosh doesn’t count yet lmao

[@dirtforlife4963]

Ding Ding r/wooosh

[@matthewjames2649]

Right and they are secret military complex they don't use wings no more! Just be glad you can still go out and buy a rubber Wheels with some fossil fuel be happy and pay $4 a gallon, and keep thinking it's fossil fuel cuz it's a lie... the freaking Earth produces it X gasoline tanker I got out of it the bunch of bullsh○•

[@julianmurillo4678]

@@Contrailing r/woooosh

[@julianmurillo4678]

@@istoleurfaceha3527 r/woooosh

[@TheWatchMker]

I think we are missing the main point of this video..... somewhere people are getting paid to fire stuff out of cannons at airplanes.

[@WendysNuts4u]

LMFAO 😂

[@RFGfotografie]

Indeed. That is the most important thing. That this is actually a THING...

[@greysky65]

🤟🏻

[@livewellwitheds6885]

lol

[@SynthD]

Typically chickens (like you’d find at the grocery store)

[@delphiproductionsmusic]

As long as you retrieve the footage from the SD card, that's the main thing

[@binop]

The test is slightly misleading. While the closing speed of 238 mph might be realistic in some unlikely circumstances (see below) it is the airplane's wing that flies fast with the drone being more or less stationary. A wing travelling fast through the air causes specific airflow strong enough to create lift keeping the plane airborne and that airflow would tend to very strongly deflect the drone either up or down, away from the wing's leading edge so a direct strike like that (perfectly aligned with wing's chord line) is highly unlikely. Drones operated legally fly below 400 ft or within 400 ft of a structure and away from airports. Planes operated legally don't fly at 200 mph+ that close to the ground or structures except perhaps for landing/takeoff where drones can't fly so for legal drone and plane operations 238 mph closing speed is not realistic. If you don't care about the rules then, well, you can do a lot more damage with a box cutter for instance.

[@Drendle87]

I understand what your saying and I agree but the comment at the end was garbage and unnecessary.

[@Genthar]

The concern is not for legally operated drones. If you're flying your drone legally, you're not going to get involved with the normal flight-path of an airplane. However, there are lots and lots of documented incidents where idiots are flying their drones where they shouldn't, including near airports during take-off and landing or near wildfires where firefighting aircraft are trying to make water/retardant drops.

[@Argosh]

@@Genthar so you want to tighten up laws because some assholes don't follow current laws? Yup. Sounds legit.

[@lerlo]

These researchers are funding whores... And fear pays the best.. So thats what they do..

[@nihilisticjackfruit6206]

You always design for the worst and hope for the best. This shows the worst case scenario if such an event were to occur.

[@atschris]

Strange how hundreds of GA pilots are killed every year by their own mistakes, but so far not one person has been killed by a hobbyist drone.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

It's a political ploy to regulate.

[@AR-zq9hq]

You forgot to add "yet" at the end

[@stinkyfungus]

@@AR-zq9hq Yep.

[@Italiankid1029]

And it's ideal to keep it that way

[@zoidlrrr4633]

The Boss yes, they do ban cars for safety issues.

[@Admiral_Jezza]

Ban airports, therefore no one can accidentally fly a drone near an airport.

[@zokhrozzWoomzy]

Jizzy wizzy 😍

[@PhantomRides]

So the airplane gets a free drone inside its wing

[@rickhutch2]

Phantom - don’t get excited, it’s only a P2S. That’s like the iPhone 3 of drones.

[@Towoawawabo8]

Lol yep

[@PhantomRides]

@@rickhutch2 😂

[@Drilloe]

Phantom i think the drone still wil fly 😂😂

[@nothingsurprisesmeanymore]

So what we learn here is that planes should be banned from flying where drones are 🤔

[@amtank]

I am a pilot. I fly Cessnas etc... I also happen to have been flying model aircraft since before my teens. I've almost struck a bird twice both of which were very large. While the test done is plausible the speed involved in the test is unlikely especially for the type of aircraft involved. Also I wouldn't say a Mooney is indicative of the strength of a general aviation aircraft considering the Mooney is light and built to be faster while the most common flying GA aircraft are built tougher. I've laid my hands on many a plane and a Mooney is closer to a fabric plane then a Cessna.

[@WendysNuts4u]

so nice to hear an actual pilot not fall for this obvious anti-hobbyist propaganda video. thanks for your professional input! 👍

[@amtank]

My current plane has a six foot wingspan and I doubt it would even penetrate a windscreen. The heaviest component is the battery and I don't fly super huge ones. On an additional topic. Research guy wants drones to be more "frangible" so you want our sturdy crash tolerant drones to simply break. All this arguing about altitudes airspaces is simple to fix. If you want to fly a drone high or by an airport it needs to broadcast its location.

[@WendysNuts4u]

@@HammerLeaf there's risk in everything. the question is, how much. in this case the chance of a manned aircraft hitting a hobbyist's toy is extremely low. "logic" would tell you that when people follow the rules and guidelines set forth by the FAA, as everyone has been doing already for many years, there's no need to throw millions of responsible hobbyists under the bus in a deceiving attempt to give the sub 400' airspace to commercial drones.

[@gpwinkler]

Planes being downed by Drones - ZERO. Planes being downed by birds - DOZENS. Reality vs your Logic - Reality WINS.

[@amtank]

That is my feelings as well droneXcursion

[@WAUMEDIA]

I will be conducting the impact of drones will have on UFOs. Can someone send me some DJI drones to be tested ? Thank you.

[@notsonicefenu]

Send me your address, and they are as good as on their way! I would like to see the results!

[@li09li09li09]

WAU MEDIA just send me your shipping information and a credit card for the shipping

[@gizzmo952]

Interesting..🤔 You have a UFO but no drones?

[@dhruva1762]

@@changvang5907 oof 😂😂

[@gabithink5079]

Ahhhh some kidss

[@ratherbflyin3301]

The amount of misinformation, conjecture, and bias in these comments is horrifying. I fly airplanes and helicopters and have flown hobby-size aircraft my whole childhood. I spend most of my life below 1000ft for work. Keep it simple: if you fly a drone in a dangerous area, you're putting lives at risk. It's just that simple. Helicopters, airplanes, it doesn't matter. If one busts through a windshield, you can incapacitated or kill the pilot. If one hits a critical flight component, you kill everyone on board. What's there to defend so vigorously on this topic? Children and hobbyists have no stake in the matter. Stay out of our airports; stay out of our airspace; stay out of popular routes. We don't want to break your toy, but we also want to live.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

How do you tell the birds to get out of the way?

[@don97322]

Rather. are you flying below 500ft AGL? Class G airspace is for hobbyists. If you are flying in THEIR airspace, then you are the one "trespassing", as it were. Your attitude is not helpful and pushes away any real support you might think you are going to gather.

[@Hamiltonon58]

If you see my drone in controlled airspace or above 400ft AGL please try to avoid it, it’s definitely a flyaway. Let’s all educate ourselves and fly responsibly. I wonder who the “experts” were making the much informed statements in the video.

[@TheNick70nick]

Your right but if you fly to low over populated area (

[@ratherbflyin3301]

​@@TheNick70nick No idea what your background is, but I hope you have some full-scale experience. If not, I recommend it to you! A lot of fun and I think you can gain a lot of perspective from it (on life, the universe, everything; not just this topic)! You're right. Part 135, it's actually illegal to go below 300ft AGL in a helicopter over a 'congested' area. (separate topic: define 'congested'). Drones are limited to 400ft AGL, but, I'm sorry, out of those who have an altimeter on their drone, who cares what it says? Again, though, MOST helicopter flying is done below 1000ft. EMS, utility, fire, and often corporate. That's what we do. That's our job and most often our livelihood. Crash into us, we die. Personal experience suggests that most drone hobbyists think they are the ones with the rights to the sky, but they have a $1000 piece of replaceable equipment. There are no lives at risk. The numbers just don't add up, and I have no idea the basis on which people think they have a platform to stand on.

[@dflycamera1554]

Its 2018......why they are testing with a Phantom 2?😅 Why not a Mavic Pro?

[@roidroid]

Makes sense to use the cheapest & most common "armaments". The AK47 isnt new either, its used coz its cheap & common & effective. Cost-per-benefit is important in war :( edit: wait, i forget this might just be some untrained quadcopter pilot accidentally getting in the way of a plane. War isn't the only relevance for these tests.

[@jakegarrett8109]

Some say the rouge Phantom 2's are still flying around uncontrolled, and have never touched the ground, that they wander the air space like ghosts.

[@dflycamera1554]

Ok, got it😅

[@MatHolliday]

Because this was a politically biased test. To prove their point more effectively they used a larger multirotor against an aircraft that flies much faster than most GA aircraft.

[@dflycamera1554]

@@MatHolliday ok but the Phantom 2 has only a range from 300 Metres.....and how you want to fly 500-1000 m high?

[@seanobrien9694]

"the drone did not shatter" Shows drone imploding into loads of pieces

[@ronixdash123]

They meant that drone didn’t shatter around rather it went straight inside wing.

[@ArchisMarathe]

@@ronixdash123 come on man (or woman), don't ruin the joke

[@mandywalkden-brown7250]

@@ArchisMarathe - that was in no way considered a joke. Completely unfunny. Rather inept comment really.

[@ArchisMarathe]

@@mandywalkden-brown7250 judging by your name and profile picture, not surprised.

[@Daniel_Scott89]

“Phantom 2 is a popular drone for hobbyists”.....umm no. It’s 2018.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

They're still popular - secondhand. They're lovely and cheap now. :)

[@angelvillegas9604]

Nope still popular

[@helicopter234]

Aircraft mechanic here :) Business jets (I work on them) usually have slats and generally far more rigid wing designs. A drone would not be able to pass through a slat like it did in the clip. Now getting a drone sucked in by a turbine is a whole different story where serious damage would occur

[@TJIzzy]

I thought for sure he was going to launch a rubber chicken for the bird test

[@johnmajane3731]

I have seen what birds can do, the damage by the drone is not surprising but informative. I saw a C-310 that had a bird strike to an engine nacelle. The upper cowling just peeled off. Fortunately he had another engine to get him home. Canada Goose if I remember correctly.

[@johnslugger]

With a ratio of 2.7 million birds per every 1 drone in the sky birds are a way bigger problem!

[@johnmajane3731]

@@johnslugger no most birds are very small, don't fly high and try to avoid planes. The problem with drones are all the idiots "flying" them. No knowledge of the rules, don't care about the ramifications of their actions, just looking for likes on KZbin.

[@jacknolan6170]

Gatwick recently anyone?

[@plaguemaster308]

yes

[@80sfreak14]

Hai

[@plaguemaster308]

@fenton bevan Yep

[@plaguemaster308]

@fenton bevan How did it take a military to stop a drone

[@imahmud]

I wonder why they didn't use a bigger drone to destroy it?

[@alexsurles]

you could fire wet toilet paper at a wing with that cannon and it is gonna damage it. jesus. Also, I love how that "bird" was "boneless" lol

[@dalehess6265]

Aluminum goes right through steel and concrete and plastic goes right through aluminum.

[@rolizp9107]

Good one right and they make us believe 911

[@hazoevo3390]

Plastic drones can't melt steel beams

[@dalehess6265]

@@DanOutdoorsUK Then why did i see the nose of the plane come out the other side on the news? Hint.... CGI.

[@alasdair4161]

It looks like a fairly biased test, as any engineer will know, looking at the static wing versus projectile has a massively different energy transfer to the wing moving into a static target. The wing moving will sustain far less damage in that situation as there is kinetic energy energy in all of the moving components. It is very evident in car crash damage, the moving car is always the one that fares best. Still, the prime objective is the same old story... drones will be killing millions by the end of the year... oh, sorry, that might be alcohol.. oh we can just blame drones for that too..

[@kaikart123]

WE NEED MORE BANS AMD REGULATIONS. THINK OF THE MINORITIES AND CHILDRENS, FUCKING NAZI ALT RIGHT SHITHEAD

[@MrMilkman29]

The result of the test would not be any different if the airplane were to be flown into the drone. The damage would be exactly the same, the only bias I notice here are from the people scraping at the bottom of the barrel for reasons as to why this test is flawed.

[@kaikart123]

What if black people are the majority of drone owners? Would they continue to push drone ban amd regulations? Would they dare be called racist?

[@carlosjimz]

yes , it's like firing a gun to a bullet , no fair game put the wing in movement and then I will see how the coanda effect at the leading edge will cause a different effect, I just think...

[@willriches]

That's a lot of damage

[@FlashbackandBolemole]

LOOK AT ALL THAT DAMAGE

[@Parker-di7ef]

I sawed this wing in half!

[@buddyclem7328]

*YEE DOGGY!*

[@mathesonfraser649]

I’m Phil swift

[@insertstupidserialnumberhe2727]

Judging by how the drone looks now, I would say that is a lot of damage!

[@ashleyarundel3134]

Firing a done at a static wing is not replicating the outcome of a flying wing striking a drone. Video synopsis: don't cannon fire your drones at parked planes.

[@willlorenz3804]

ashley arundel they are close enough for their point

[@ashleyarundel3134]

Will, if their point is 'Don't cannon fire a DJI at the leading edge of a static plane wing, as it will damage it" then, yep, you are right. However, they have missed the 'real world physics' of a wing in flight, in the real world. m.phys.org/news/2012-01-wings.html

[@QekLiHoQfuh]

Which proves what? Firing smoke out of a canon at a stationary wing isn't the same as flying the wing through smoke? Dunno about yours, my model aircraft weigh a bit more than smoke, and, regardless, if you're trying to imply that the airflow would "deflect the drone around the wing", then that's nonsense, however much it deflects, if at all (inertia...) it just means the trajectory required for impact is different, not that impact is impossible. There is real-world proof of this, from the real world of planes in flight: www.google.com/search?q=leading+edge+damage+from+bird+strike&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X

[@Geerice]

Considering birds of similar weight can and have hit planes, I think you are the one that needs to reevaluate the testing.

[@martinfahrer4971]

Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. is completely ignored.

[@hugosjoberg9539]

1:19 " So the drone we use for this type of testing is a dji? Phantom? 2?"

[@mikeyjames1000]

So i was out the other day shooting my p4p out a cannon 🤔😂

[@americanmetalmotorsandmuscle]

The narrarator kept saying when the drone hits a plane and I think that's backwards

[@MrFreddyjack]

American metal motors And muscle well technically the plane has the right of way. It is so hard to see a drone from an airplane moving 120mph+

[@richardholder9367]

These videos are why drones get a bad reputation. As far as I know there has been no drone aircraft incidents where the aircraft was in any structural distress. As a pilot myself, drones are last thing I worry about when I fly. There are 100's of unreported close calls with aircraft and other aircraft. It is the misconception of drones being autonomous, that scares people. The drone regulations are clear to keep both aircraft and drones apart. Didn't some nut case steal an aircraft in the Northwest earlier this year and endanger 1000's of lives? Drones are not a hazard and should be portrait as such.

[@calliarcale]

You are correct that there has been no actual reported drone strike yet. I personally am not as sanguine about that as you are.

[@scottwells1486]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqWko39_jb-LiKs

[@koalatails6391]

It is nice to see some aircraft pilots do not see every drone as a missile, intent on destruction. Thank you.

[@maxsdad538]

I don't know ANYONE who worries about "autonomous drones", they worry about irresponsible drone OWNERS. And your "it's never happened do it's never going to happen" logic is both stupid and dangerous. ANYTHING that flies is a potential hazard, and if you can't accept that, then maybe you shouldn't be flying. BTW, there have been SEVERAL confirmed collisions betwen drones and airplanes & helicopters. A commercial airliner collided with a drone back in 2017 over Canada, and in 2018, a DJI drone collided with an Army Blackhawk helicopter near Brooklyn, damaging one of the rotor blades. The owner of the drone, 58 year old Vyacheslav Tantashov, was located after components with serial numbers were traced to Tantashov. Would you like some salt for that crow you're eating?

[@mcshawnboy]

KZbin suggested your video. I have worked with people who used that type of drone, but I don't recall them flying very high. 20 minutes of battery would be hard to get to 10,000 feet. I saw one flying in a straight line on a low wind day at about 800 feet above sea level going 2.5 miles out to inspect a target, but it was a stretch to get it back and did go into a crash upon the landing. I am not very familiar with civil aviation nor the wing you tested, but it's sobering footage as it's likely to influence regs on drones.

[@jlega18]

Can't handle a drone but they slice through the WTC

[@imahmud]

Inside job.

[@colejohnson66]

@@ashleyjanit5052 I think it was sarcasm, but I could be wrong

[@xipkore]

@@ashleyjanit5052 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGWmiWBvodCFg7M

[@rosemarydolliver]

Exactly! Wake up folks!

[@joepie221]

Although its good to see the "Potential " damage a drone could cause, the factor that was not represented here is the displacement and compression of the air about the leading edge of the wing. Its very possible the drone may actually surf the compressed air and elevate or be pushed down in the vortex and not do the damage shown. The test was good, but incomplete based on this variable.

[@ChrisKuhi]

Exactly!

[@ChrisKuhi]

Do they? I have never heard of a bird damaging a wing. They get sucked into jet engines, or hit propellers... but leading edge of a wing? Any examples from the real world?

[@IceTTom]

Don't bring your science, logic, reason... into this video! How dare you!

[@joepie221]

@@IceTTom Are you a Trump advisor? Kidding, but not really.

[@cbale2000]

Fun Fact: Drones outnumber manned aircraft 7-1 globally but there have been ZERO reported cases of a drone-aircraft collision.

[@WendysNuts4u]

truth 👍

[@scottwells1486]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqWko39_jb-LiKs

[@gr4vey4rd69]

@@scottwells1486 this is cgi, it is painfully obvious. if you did this to prove something, you don't know what cgi looks like.

[@scottwells1486]

😂😂😂😂 paste the wrong link and people lose their mind. Look at the rest of the messages, link I meant to post is a reply elsewhere.

[@rammcd2769]

@@scottwells1486 - YEAH RIGHT -why didn't you add it again then? the fact you left the CRAPPY link up & posted it on other comments threads proves what a turd you really are.

[@fedzalicious]

Damn! I hope no one fires a drone out of a cannon perfectly at the leading edge of a stationary aeroplane wing.

[@AichnerChristian]

That's a lotta damage - but luckily, Flex Tape come super wide, so you can easily patch large holes. To show the power of Flex Tape, he sawed this aircraft in half! And repaired it with only Flex Tape! _Phil Swift flying an airplane_ "NOT ONLY DOES FLEX TAPE’S POWERFUL ADHESIVE HOLD THE AIRCRAFT TOGETHER, BUT IT CREATES A SUPER STRONG AIR TIGHT SEAL, SO THE INSIDE IS COMPLETELY DRY!" _Yee-dogge_ Just cut, peel, stick and seal! Imagine everything you can do with the power of Flex Tape!

[@andrewglinski4722]

Why? WHY? WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST ON CALLING *QUADCOPTERS* “DRONES”????

[@IBB4U1]

Too long of a word, I know that bothers me also

[@Parabueto]

Eh, well those ones can pretty much fly themselves on a pre programmed mission so are more deserving.

[@redryder6987]

Because with the term "drone" one envisions an MQ-9 Reaper loaded with 500lb LGBs and Hellfires or an RQ-4 Global Hawk. It places an undeserved aura of fear over RC aircraft, never mind the fact that if a terrorist was actually wanting to cause some damage, they would smuggle RPGs, MANPADs, and mortars over the Mexican border, all of which are far cheaper than even a mediocre quadrotor that couldnt carry enough explosive material to actually effect any damage or injuries anyway. Further, in no way, shape, or form should a quadrotor ever be able to intercept aircraft in flight, they simply can not go that fast. Mid air collisions are only a true risk around hospital helicopter landing pads, wildfires, and airport runways, and even at that, those collisions would be at a low velocity. Helicopters are perhaps the only thing that might be vulnerable, and I say MIGHT because one need only look at all of the battle damage sustained by helicopters over the years, including a case where two huey's landed in a thicket of bamboo to evacuate troops in Vietnam (cutting said bamboo down and damaging the blades far more than a simple bird/"drone" collision). To say that a quadrotor could fatally damage an aircraft in a collision is laughable never mind that the conditions of a collision are difficult to achieve, and that is also forgetting that there are only a few locations where a quadrotor could actually hit/intercept a large aircraft. It is simply politics, and it is completely biased. In order to purposefully cause damage, you must know where an aircraft is beforehand, further, it must be low enough and slow enough in order to purposefully hit it... Again, this is only truly possible around landing strips/pads. It is far easier to sabotage aircraft on the ground, or to blast it on the runway with an RPG and lay mortars down on the terminals, or to blast it out of the air far away from the airport with a MANPAD. All of those options would effectively be a mass casualty event, unlike a "drone" strike which would, at best, damage the leading edge of an aircraft and cause some drag, and at worst, bend the spar of an old light weight aluminum aircraft.... if this were a composite wing, the results would have been vastly different and again, at worst, the quadrotor would only cause a hole and some drag in a wing....

[@DualDesertEagle]

I keep asking myself the same thing and can't find a valid answer for it.

[@spotmom]

The same reason they call any black rifle an "assault rifle". Too lazy for facts and it sounds scarier. But drone does have 3 less syllables so it is easier to say. Unless we start calling them quads, then the 4 wheeler guys won't know what you are talking about.....

[@Caroline_Tyler]

And yet, even with this highly unlikely situation the plane would have been able to land safely. Simple solution, GA planes need to stay above 500 feet except where landing/taking off as legally required and drones like these keep under the now legal requirement of 400 feet. This would never then happen and this biased experiment is pointless.

[@MrMilkman29]

I think it's better to prioritize the safety of passenger airliners than it is to prioritize the convenience of drone hobbyists.

[@visstar3335]

Exactly your so right

[@visstar3335]

MrMilkman29 it’s not prioritizing safety in this case. It’s just enforcing the already set rules which make this kind of event impossible. As a 100 foot margin is more than enough to avoid this kind of incident. At this point it’s just an experiment made to give evidence to a point which never should come up at least according to law.

[@gpwinkler]

You miscalculate and assume that "safety" provides you zero risk. True, banning drones would eliminate the risk of death due to drone strike. But you are still willing to get on a plane that can be taken down by a bird strike. Air travel is a convinience as well. You could always walk, take a train, drive a car, take a bus, or ride a horse. No risk of drone strike thre. Or walk on a sidewalk, drive a car, climb a ladder, step in a bathtub these have risk too, far more deaths every year from these simple activities, yet you are twisted up over drone flight . We should prioritize the safety of mrmilkman by locking in a rubber room for the rest of his life. He will be surely safe then.

[@Caroline_Tyler]

@@MrMilkman29 There can never be zero risk but also the level of risk from a drone strike is tiny in comparison to the risk associated with accidents due to pilot error in GA (by a huge margin the biggest risk), bird strikes (you can't ban birds or limit them to below 400 feet), and air traffic mistakes. Remember the most deadly air accident on Tenerife involving 2 fully occupied 747 jets was caused by the captain ignoring/mishearing others saying not to attempt take-off and plowing into the other plane that was still crossing the runway. There are always risks but just don't demonise drones. The vast majority of 'drones' are flown barely over tree height and often in-between trees .... these pose no risk whatsoever to GA but would still come under such a blanket ban. Most aviation modellers are flying to a very comprehensive set of safety rules to minimise risk. And have done so without any loss of life/injuries to manned aircraft EVER. GA with all its safety measures cannot say that!

[@Dragonfyre.]

is it really that hard for people to not fly drones around airports?

[@TG-it8zt]

Dragonfyre drone people are like gun people. They believe it’s their god given right to fly a drone even if they’re putting people at risk

[@zedsanimations2242]

@@TG-it8zt eh no most pilots don't fly their drones near airports way to risky

[@TG-it8zt]

Zed's animations tell that to the hundreds of thousands affected at Gatwick this week

[@zedsanimations2242]

@@TG-it8zt link?

[@TG-it8zt]

Zed's animations link? You’ve got google, it’s massive news

[@davidcox2459]

Am I the only one wondering how they managed to shot a drone at 238 mph without destroying the thing from the acceleration?

[@Admiral_Jezza]

Wondering the same thing, and no one else even bats an eye at that.

[@soylientgreen8618]

Styrophome bullet that falls off as it exits the cannon..

[@mrtannzr]

The drone is encased in a foam cylinder called a sabot that falls away after it leaves the cannon.

[@GRPLiningServices]

David Cox it was destroyed unless you really believe it would fly again after they retrieved it?

[@Uberhr]

1:19 " the drone we used was a DJI Phantom 2, which is very popular these days" I'm quite sure Phantom 2s haven't been flown regularly since about 4 years ago

[@formhubfar]

Hang on a minute, plane wings can cut straight through structural box steel sections bringing sky scrapers down.

[@Reiflexx]

... Yes. Thanks for playing, next.

[@straybubbles7334]

It's. Called magic

[@savagecub]

No.......but a couple thousand gallons of burning jet fuel sure can.

[@choughed3072]

@@savagecub the second plane cut about half way into the tower before exploding.

[@savagecub]

just me Halfway.....that would correspond to where the wings are which contain the fuel...........but hey if you want to still believe in Santa Claus too that’s ok. God forbid logic should take away anyone’s conspiracy fantasies.

[@douglasheld]

238 statute miles per hour is really not a reasonable collision speed. Vx (best climb or glide) for a Mooney should be in the range of 80-90 kts, which is about 100 statute miles per hour. Collisions would most likely happen during takeoff or landing, which would be near this speed. The DJI Phantom on the other hand, has a maximum speed of under 50 statute miles per hour. Why not test for the most likely scenario rather than this extreme edge case?

[@matthewconnor5483]

I see value in examining the extremes to have the data but mostly likely senerios should be the primary focus of efforts. This was rather disingenuous in the presentation. I know if a plane where to hit my drone they would be doing something every unsafe or illegal for that scenario to even be possible. The scenarios where a strike is even possible need to be addressed in order to properly gauge the actual level of risk.

[@Beltfedshooters]

There's pics of a Phantom drone that hit a Blackhawk helicopters rotor blade. When you look at the pics you can barely see a scratch in the rotor blade.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

Of course, this test was bullshit.

[@MrMilkman29]

Rotor blades and wings are completely different things.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

How. Explain.

[@MrMilkman29]

Helicopter rotors tend to be a bit more dense, with materials meant to withstand both the high RPM of the rotors and any debris that may hit it during flight. Airplane wings are much more hollow and thus weaker than Helicopter rotors, and are designed like this because they do not need to withstand neither a high RPM nor do they have to deal with debris impact nearly as often. Also, wings tend to have critical components and piping within them due to them being more hollow, which can lead to a severely crippled airplane if they are destroyed due to debris from an impact, while helicopter rotors don't tend to have anything inside them other than structural support material.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

Ah, okay. Your statement was vague, and could be interpreted as each being aerodynamically different (they are not.)

[@EinkOLED]

Did they freeze it?

[@sfsaviation]

EinkOLED no,but at those speeds it may as well have been

[@shelbyintheolds]

That battery rupture and cause of fire from inside wing could be a bad situation if the impact is near or damage to the fuel cell occurred.

[@matthewjames2649]

Ty4sharing.... I don't think I'll ever let my drone go that high... but thank you this needs to be seen for drone Pilots....

[@DoRC]

This is horseshit propaganda paid for by commercial drone companies. Google "bird strike wing". OMG. Looks exactly the same. At those speeds its pretty much just the mass that matters not what it's made from. And how often does a bird bring a plane down? At least quad pilots are mostly doing their best to avoid planes.

[@kugrjado]

How many airplanes got damaged by drones so far?

[@AngryStaffSgt]

*ZERO*

[@AngryStaffSgt]

I own 3 drones btw and I can actually say that drones aren't causing danger to aviation.

[@deltajegga]

confirmed? 1 helicopter.

[@Paolo-qe7lc]

VEHICLE VIOLENCE wrong look up the incidents

[@Paolo-qe7lc]

A helicopter did the other day filming a race

[@zodiacfml]

Wow. Theyre so smart and lazy for that easy test. The actual question is how easy it is for a drone to hit a wing in a real world scenario. What i want to see if theres a possibility for a drone to be sucked in by the engine and damage potential

[@buddyclem7328]

I am interested in that too, but no drone will get sucked into the piston engine of a propeller driven single engine aircraft.

[@straybubbles7334]

Just searched on KZbin for drone strikes airplane.

[@calliarcale]

There's absolutely the possibility, but they'll need more money to test that -- working engines are a lot more expensive than the wings of a scrapped aircraft! :-D

[@chuckcrunch1]

and you get fake videos

[@ryansnider]

1:44 "The drone did not shatter apart..." Is he watching the same footage? That drone got absolutely obliterated. And then they show an intact drone sitting on the wing above the hole. Were they hoping people would think the drone survived unscathed or is it just for size comparison ?

[@michaelking3327]

that was a second drone in case the first test failed

[@dr_jaymz]

As a pilot I worry far more about birds, there are some massive birds and they can and do cause significant damage, then I realise it's me that's not supposed to be up there. There are significantly fewer drones and 95pc are tiny.

[@victorstr9396]

That's the worst thing a drone can do to a small airplane? No wonder why no terrorist ever use drone to attack any airplane even though drones are widely available all over the world and can be bought without question asked. The damage is astonishingly underwhelming. A smaller, more popular drones would have been just a paint scratch.

[@avochristos7834]

I'm ignorant about avionic tech but the drone might perhaps sever the wiring, hydraulics, or fuel line might be catastrophic. This is not to mention decrease in lift and increase in drag.

[@avochristos7834]

On another note, terrorist does use drone to drop mortar shells, grenades, and IED.

[@roidroid]

Yeah if u wanted to cause damage you'd modify it, carry a steel pipe or explosives. Its kinda scary but thats life, its not new, i wish ppl would stop being so reactionary with laws about it. Theres so many ways to hurt eachother, we've been doing it longer than humans have existed.

[@bryanotero123]

Drones has been used against Venezuela dictator

[@MatHolliday]

For a terrorist it would be easier to take down an aircraft by just pointing a gun at it. The drone would be much more effective as a payload delivery platform rather than a one time suicide mission. Think about it this way; A multirotor can only fly with so much payload. Instead of loading it with the same amount of payload and flying it into your target once why not just fly over your target and drop the same amount of payload and reuse the drone? This doesn't give you extreme precision or any guidance once that payload is dropped but you can do it over and over again. This is exactly what ISIS is doing with mortar shells. NSA/FBI agents if you read this please dont put me on a list.

[@gregkral4467]

Thank you for conducting this test, it is a concern for both pilots and drone operators. Very important to see what damage could ensue.

[@DanSlotea]

Some drone operators don't actually give a shit

[@jaridkeen123]

Lol the bird fucked up the wing more then the drone and the guy was like "nah the bird didnt do shit"

[@brentvillines8021]

For $70-80 an hour our future aircraft controllers with common core master degrees will solve this problem for us.

[@honprarules]

Watching this before take off. Nice recommendations KZbin.

[@jeremycarey2772]

A better test would be to move the wing at 238 mph and hit the drone. There may be air flow that would cause drone to deflect rather than direct hit. It would no doubt do damage, but this is not a good test.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

It's a political ploy to regulate.

[@MrMilkman29]

The speed that the plane would be traveling at would be too fast for that effect to take place. The results would be exactly the same, except it seems you'd all try and find some other excuse as to why the test was in some way faulty.

[@jeremycarey2772]

MrMilkman29 I never implied that the test results would be different, but if you don't test it real world

[@MrMilkman29]

The only thing that would accomplish is wasting more money on a test that could easily have been done with the exact same results by just throwing the drone at the wing. Should we start throwing walls at cars to see how they fare during a test?

[@proventure307]

back to physics i would say. its the same

[@dudeskidaddy]

Mooney isn’t going to be traveling at 250mph let alone at low altitude. A biz jet will but has a wing leading edge 2x thicker at least.

[@rackets001]

Mooney M20 Acclaim Ultra cruises at 278mph. So yeah.

[@nospam-hn7xm]

You weren't listening. He said "combined speed" of both aircraft.

[@keegansponholz9260]

@@rackets001 cruises being the operative word here. The only time that a Phantom II and an M20 could share the same airspace is when the Mooney is on approach or departure, when it will be travelling about 150mph slower. It's also worth noting that this wasn't an M20 acclaim wing, it was an M20 wing from a much older aircraft which cruises much slower. AND the FAA enforces a 250 knot speed limit on aircraft operating under 10,000 feet. There is basically no was that this test could be replicated in a real world scenario.

[@chris746568462]

Maybe they should start shooting meteors out of the cannon, just in case one comes down on a plane...

[@angamah]

Not representative in my opinion, this wing is of a small general aviation aircraft, would be interesting to see the same test on a wing of an airliner, much stronger and added slats in front, and similar speeds as tested in this video on landing

[@xerall]

Cool video, we need more of this kind of testing

[@johnrodriguez2439]

Its always interesting how they almost solely use dji's in their representation, that its usualy inexperienced pilots, normal people who go out, buy a 500 doller machine, and do the dumbest things they can just because they bought a muiltirotor Very rarely do you see the hobby enthusiest with their racing quads or video tri's anywhere near thatle endanger anyone I dont think we need to bad drones, but i do think we need to educate newcomers into the hobby more, maybe have a thing on the dji that wont let it fully activate untill you take an online course, at least this way people can make better decisions on how to use their machines, these things arents toys and they shouldent be treated as such, but we need to help the newcomers so they know whats dangerouse and what isnt and what are the risks. Just my 2c

[@MatHolliday]

Absolutely right. With any crowd, there will be a few bad individuals that give the whole group a bad name. Unfortunately for the R/C community there is a very easy potential for loss of life if an uneducated person gets a hold of the controls.

[@matthewconnor5483]

DJI already geo fences and has several parameters that limits what the aircraft can do. Its actually rather annoying to have to override when using a DJI drone for a commercial job where you have all the appropriate authorizations.

[@MatHolliday]

Not really, its one authorization code from DJI once you provide a FAA waiver. Its about to get alot easier with the implementation of the LAANC system.

[@MrTea42]

agreed, took my kids to see the fireworks at our local park on the 4th, and about 10 minutes until the start there had to be 30 drones taking off out of the backyards of these 350,000 dollar homes, and they all make a B line for the park flying over hundreds without their craft in sight. makes me sad as a drone pilot because its that sort of behavior the politicians will use against us.

[@petervisi5369]

There is a drone brand out there, its top of the shelf drones are limited to use full capability before a certain amount of hours flying. DJI probably will never release its drones like that because some(I think more than a lot) customers wouldn't pay $2000 and not able to use it on full capacity. Money first, safety and everything else second.

[@edg6779]

b ... b... b... biased

[@Delta-1X-Ray]

Then I would like you to fly one of these on the air near the airport a d have one of it crashed on the wings. You think that the aviation company wouldn't sue you?

[@edg6779]

I don't fly drones, I fly quads.

[@alancolvin3283]

Foxtrot, type in "bird strike on plane" if you want to see the real problem.

[@jamesbottleman7939]

Amazing how much damage an airplane can do to a drone!

[@sakuraturbo3364]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@hojo70]

There are thousands of drones in use every day and there's never been such an incident and the chances are extremely unlikely. Drone operators do a very good job staying away from airports where only this situation could occur.

[@88997799]

One issue not factored in is the wind force that continues to push the drone into the hole and out the back side of the wing. Then the wind rips the wing open and you crash.

[@machinesandthings7121]

It's really simple, make it manditory for all drones to transmit ADSB.

[@DutchPortal]

In that case you get spammed by traffic alerts

[@jakegarrett8109]

Alert, my 65mm wheelbase 30 gram micro quad is between 5 and 10 ft altitude (about 20 ft below tree lines), all pilots planning to crash should be on the look out for what looks like a Styrofoam cup floating around at up to 10 mph. That is all, use caution!

[@SeatFX]

@@jakegarrett8109 Made my day.

[@pdtech4524]

@@jakegarrett8109 lol that seems like a joke and you're making it up but it is actually so true, most hobbyist drone pilots are flying a sub 250g drone, many even less than 100g flying in the local park well below the tree tops, so the authorities want us to fit transponders and call in every flight!? 😊😁 My grandad used to fly model planes years ago, it was never a problem until all this media hype about drones!

[@jakegarrett8109]

​@@pdtech4524 Yeah, I've had a blast with my new 1s brushless whoop (OSD, telemetry, its amazing what it has). I'd love to go fly it outside whooping, but its a 45 minute drive until I'm 5 miles from any airport... Plus where I'm at, there are 4 different airports... Its not like I'm going that high of altitude, these things make a kitchen table look like an immense cavern or cave ready to explore. I would so love to walk outside and fly around the trees and gap some tall grass, but nope, Uncle Sam says no Freedom for you!

[@me.anthony.7]

Se você soube como pesquisar isso em inglês, você está aqui depois do inteligência Ltda com o lito.

[@tiagomatheusschneider7264]

De fato

[@wisico640]

Thanks for the propaganda; might just ruin a lot of amazing footage in the future :D ❤

[@vinodztube7363]

My drone didn't break your plane. Your plane broke my drone!

[@EasternExplorer]

The world needs more DC-3's. Any plane that can't take multiple flack hits and not fly home is no aircraft at all.

[@miguellopez3392]

By that logic an SR-71 is not a real aircraft since it would destroy its self half the time by just flying.

[@EasternExplorer]

Learn to take a joke

[@craigw1379]

Drone speed record right there!

[@WendysNuts4u]

lol 😂

[@elfkind5590]

Airplanes are ruining the hobby. Stay above 400 ft like you are supposed to.

[@WendysNuts4u]

exactly. 👍

[@keegansponholz9260]

fun fact, 400 feet isn't a floor for full scale aviation. It's usually very unsafe to operate at such low altitudes, but it does happen. That being said, this test is a load of horse shit and I would very much like to see University of Dayton have to eat its own feces for publishing this farce of an "experiment." UAS operations are among the safest in aviation and it's totally bullshit to see it smeared in this way. This is coming from a pilot of both full scale and model aircraft.

[@TheKingDrew]

Hey the pilot gets a free drone

[@MattOBrienOfficial]

Most to all (especially DJI) drones have built in gps tracking systems along with no fly zones built in plus have height limit set in. The only way to fly anywhere near an airport is if you have a permit, license and much more. If you have a modern drone, it won’t even take off or go near an airport due to the gps tracking. The only way is if someone deliberately goes into the coding of the drone and disables it which is very difficult to do.

[@Samvisualarts]

Thank God they have dji care refresh

[@notshaken7269]

But the wings on the planes on 9/11 somehow cut through the steel beams on the building🤔

[@connor8560]

Not Shaken they didnt cut through

[@notshaken7269]

Connor Clark they did... there look at the impact on the buildings, there is opening where the wings were

[@heliocentricsuicide7107]

I wanna know how a phantom 2 launches at speeds over 230mph and is still perfectly in tact when it hits the wing?

[@BearIvory]

So I suppose the dense airflow was not taken into consideration at all. Nice.

[@odysseusprime9285]

If a private jet is traveling 400 knots at low altitude, that's a problem in itself.

[@LloydLesterIII]

That was badass! Exactly why I don't fly over 390 feet high

[@TravelQuintessence]

Great Video 👍🏿 Loved it

[@m4bolicious]

No sir, YOU hit my drone with your plane!

[@panamediallc4454]

Drone containment vessel. Nice!

[@iflyitfpv9224]

Your not aloud to go above 400 feet with a drone unless you got hired and the FAA gives you permission just for that one time. I’m a big drone guy and I know some of the rules and regulations and I’m only 12 years old.

[@rackets001]

A commercial aircraft leading edge is multiple times as thick as the leading edge of the wing in this video. I've wiped bird smudges off many a leading edge, they typically just bounce off and leave a small feathery splat. A drone might even leave a bit of a dent.

[@ichbrauchmehrkaffee5785]

In germany, there's a limitation for drones. In general, you're not allowed to go higher than 100m, not at all are you allowed to fly near airports and aerodromes within a radius of 1.5km. As long as people don't step across that legal border, i don't really see anyof this happenning very soon.

[@EazyRed]

I love drones, I cried

[@therealakalaska9485]

do you still get the view if I leave be4 the 1 min add is over and they wont let me skip it

[@jameswhite8612]

Gatwick airport 2018 anyone?

[@xeric1953]

Just shows how flimsy aircraft metal is compared to how tough it looks

[@Pilot.Lindsay]

You are right the test is miss leading. And a plane has never hit a drone yet.

[@Natetron01]

That moment when a 200 dollar plastic drone is stronger than an aluminum structural airplane.

[@VivaFrei]

I wonder with the turbulence and air cushion around the wing of s plane in *flight* if it would even be possible to have such a direct hit. I actually doubt it’s possible in reality to have such a direct hit given the turbulence and air flow *around* a wing it s plane travelling at hundreds of miles an hour...

[@isaacj1968]

It’s simple, don’t fly your flipping drone near an airport or over 1000 ft!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

Did not know they had a chicken gun over at UDRI, man those guys have all the cool toys.

[@KaBaPilot]

Phantom 2 isn't that popular anymore. Most of us drone pilots use the Mavics, P4 or more. But this isn't important for that test. Drones can be dangerous for airplanes. That is the reason, why we should always keep distance to planes, airfields and always respect the laws.

[@csabi72]

The sad thing about this , that the FAA will bring this video up as an example against the droners, no matter what you are commenting about it.

[@MasteringHow-To]

Dji updated their software to have a cap on elevation. You can’t fly them that high anymore. Especially over areas well known for Planes

[@lakegunner23]

Holy shit! Thought forsure it would break up... pretty impressive amount of damage though!

[@binarybox.binarybox]

As I have worked on the EE Lightening and know how thin aircraft wings are made, I would rather go along with damage to a wing being caused by bird and drone strikes rather than the ludicrous videos of 911 where the plane penetrates 4 inch thick steel girders.... crazy CGI they expect viewers to believe!