Just slap it with flex tape

@Electronic4081

5 жыл бұрын

gee emmz THATS A LOT OF DAMAGE!

@blackturbine

5 жыл бұрын

I saw this plane in half

@ther1rida

5 жыл бұрын

GOLDEN COMMENT

@nicks_adventures

5 жыл бұрын

How will you do that in mid air

@Sheetmaster-qq1lb

5 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Birds should be banned

@bestamerica

5 жыл бұрын

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

@WaterPython

5 жыл бұрын

Y3s

@sfsaviation

5 жыл бұрын

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

@msy6864

5 жыл бұрын

Excuse me wtf

@Nwyk

5 жыл бұрын

bestamerica wooosh

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

@istoleurfaceha3527

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

Ding Ding r/wooosh

@matthewjames2649

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

@@Contrailing r/woooosh

@julianmurillo4678

5 жыл бұрын

@@istoleurfaceha3527 r/woooosh

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

5 жыл бұрын

LMFAO 😂

@RFGfotografie

5 жыл бұрын

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

@greysky65

4 жыл бұрын

🤟🏻

@livewellwitheds6885

3 жыл бұрын

lol

@SynthD

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

It's a political ploy to regulate.

@AR-zq9hq

5 жыл бұрын

You forgot to add "yet" at the end

@stinkyfungus

5 жыл бұрын

@@AR-zq9hq Yep.

@Italiankid1029

5 жыл бұрын

And it's ideal to keep it that way

@zoidlrrr4633

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@zokhrozzWoomzy

Жыл бұрын

Jizzy wizzy 😍

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

@ronixdash123

4 жыл бұрын

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

@archismarathe1589

3 жыл бұрын

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

@mandywalkden-brown7250

3 жыл бұрын

@@archismarathe1589 - that was in no way considered a joke. Completely unfunny. Rather inept comment really.

@archismarathe1589

3 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@Genthar

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@lerlo

5 жыл бұрын

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

@nihilisticjackfruit6206

5 жыл бұрын

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

So the airplane gets a free drone inside its wing

@rickhutch2

5 жыл бұрын

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

@towoawawaboofficial

5 жыл бұрын

Lol yep

@PhantomRides

5 жыл бұрын

@@rickhutch2 😂

@Drilloe

5 жыл бұрын

Phantom i think the drone still wil fly 😂😂

@nothingsurprisesmeanymore

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@amtank

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

@@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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@amtank

5 жыл бұрын

That is my feelings as well droneXcursion

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

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

@roidroid

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

Ok, got it😅

@MatHolliday

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@li09li09li09

5 жыл бұрын

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

@gizzmo952

5 жыл бұрын

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

@dhruva1762

5 жыл бұрын

@@changvang5907 oof 😂😂

@gabithink5079

5 жыл бұрын

Ahhhh some kidss

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

@PiDsPagePrototypes

5 жыл бұрын

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

@angelvillegas9604

3 жыл бұрын

Nope still popular

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

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

@rolizp9107

5 жыл бұрын

Good one right and they make us believe 911

@hazoevo3390

5 жыл бұрын

Plastic drones can't melt steel beams

@dalehess6265

5 жыл бұрын

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

That's a lot of damage

@FlashbackandBolemole

5 жыл бұрын

LOOK AT ALL THAT DAMAGE

@Parker-di7ef

5 жыл бұрын

I sawed this wing in half!

@buddyclem7328

5 жыл бұрын

*YEE DOGGY!*

@mathesonfraser649

5 жыл бұрын

I’m Phil swift

@insertstupidserialnumberhe2727

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

Gatwick recently anyone?

@plaguemaster308

5 жыл бұрын

yes

@80sfreak14

5 жыл бұрын

Hai

@plaguemaster308

5 жыл бұрын

@fenton bevan Yep

@plaguemaster308

5 жыл бұрын

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

@imahmud

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

2 жыл бұрын

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

@johnmajane3731

2 жыл бұрын

@@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 KZread.

Im sorry but it looks like birds fo more damage than the drone 😂

@thecanadiankiwibirb4512

5 жыл бұрын

Calderon Zefaed The drone could puncture a fuel cell and then the fuel could explode! That would do ALLOTADAMAGE The bird would domage more paneling but pobabbli not puncture the fuel cell

@JoshuaR.Collins

5 жыл бұрын

Not to mention the bir didn’t look to break apart

@edchesnut7309

5 жыл бұрын

Whack-a-doodle-do!

@edchesnut7309

5 жыл бұрын

(referring to "RAIDEAD's" comment . . . repeat . . . Whack-a-doodle-doo!)

@QekLiHoQfuh

5 жыл бұрын

That is an ordinary aircraft wing. What is "titan"? Titanium? Aircraft wings do not have "wing covers", they are generally skinned with some kind of aluminium alloy, or with doped cloth in the case of vintage 'planes. (Airliners might have leading edge slats - these are aerodynamic devices to increase lift at low speed and they form the leading edge, they don't "protect" it.) They do use titanium leading edges on jet engine _fan blades_, however, titanium isn't magically indestructible. The Boeing 787, being made mostly of composites, has, relatively speaking, an enormous amount of titanium, which is electro-chemically more compatible with polymer resin composites than is aluminium. Indeed, it probably has more titanium than any other airliner. But it has composite leading edges (with a thin sprayed metal layer of heating elements inside for de-icing). I fly model aircraft, I have mates who fly drones, I don't want to see them banned or over-restricted. With sensible flying, the chances of drone strikes should be loads less than the chances of bird strikes, and, as the video said, this kind of impact is survivable by the 'plane, though potentially quite costly. But folk combining wilful ignorance with belligerence are not doing us model flyers any favours. I don't want to see the powers that be take my, or your, toys away, but, dude, get a fucking clue, learn some manners, facts and humility before slagging off people who are doing and sharing some actual useful research.

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

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

@WendysNuts4u

5 жыл бұрын

truth 👍

@scottwells1486

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eqh11K6CiL2-gqw.html

@gr4vey4rd69

5 жыл бұрын

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

@scottwells1486

5 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂 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

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Biased review - a mooney m20 is one of the fastest GA aircraft available - so they were able to add the mooney's top speed to the drones top speed for maximum results - there are very very few mooney's out there - they didn't chose a common GA aircraft like a piper cub because the impact speed would have been half what this test used. Also, a moving aircraft wing pushes a bow wave of air in front of it - which might well have deflected the drone strike into a glancing blow - this test used a static wing

@zackthebongripper7274

5 жыл бұрын

It's a political ploy to regulate.

@hawkeye1990ful

5 жыл бұрын

They built over 11000 Mooney m20 aircraft bro. They’re pretty common.

@stinkyfungus

5 жыл бұрын

A multi rotor the size of a phantom will punch right through the wing skin on a cub like a knife through butter Even at a 70kt closing speed. Far more potential for damage than any bird. Plus, bird guts dont burn. The battery inside a multirotor probably will, one little cut in the envelope...and it turns into a little volcano. These are very dangerous toys if flown irresponsably. And i see alot of people flying them irresponsably.

@terraholdingco

5 жыл бұрын

Don't forget the thousands of Cirrus SR-22's, The Cessna Corvallis', both easily cruising at over 200 mph, Lancairs that top over 300 mph, the thousands of old Warbirds, and thats not counting the Piper Malibu's, Mirages, and TBM's, easily capable of over 300 MPH. The speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 knots or 285 mph, unless of course the aircraft has a permit to operate at up to 300 knots or 342 mph. Taking a drone strike, like what has been shown in the video, would be potentially catastrophic for the aircrew in any aircraft, as typically the batteries on board the drone erupt in a shower of sparks and like to burn after a severe impact. This would almost certainly ignite the fuel which would be pouring out the breached fuel tanks, located in the wings in most airplanes, after such an impact. If the aircraft is fabric covered, you can only image how much worse it might become. Additionally, the bow wave of air would do nothing to prevent such a strike. Positioned in the right place at the right time, this exact type of strike could very well happen. God forbid, it strikes through the window, beheading the pilot, assuming its not already an open pit cockpit which would automatically kill the pilot as well. I watched this exact type of drone go by in the blink of an eye at 6000 feet over New York City at only 50 feet off the left side of my aircraft once. I've heard other pilots on numerous occasions reporting drone sightings to Air Traffic Control at many thousands of feet in altitude above the ground. Like they stated in the video, its simply a matter of time before the worst case happens because of irresponsible drone operators. I hope I'm not the one it happens to, or any one of my colleagues that I fly with, with perhaps you, or someone you know on board.

@Gilbertmk2

5 жыл бұрын

No they picked a medium between your average 172 and small jets. No conspiracy.

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

KZread 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.

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!

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

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

@MrFreddyjack

5 жыл бұрын

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+

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

@TG-it8zt

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@TG-it8zt

5 жыл бұрын

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

@zedsanimations2242

5 жыл бұрын

@@TG-it8zt link?

@TG-it8zt

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@don97322

5 жыл бұрын

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

4 жыл бұрын

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

3 жыл бұрын

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

@ratherbflyin3301

3 жыл бұрын

​@@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.

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@MrMilkman29

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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...

this is why commercial and personal aircraft need to stay out of recreational airspace. that was the point of this video, right?

@Paolo-qe7lc

5 жыл бұрын

droneXcursion You guys seem to think you own airspace. Bet you have the “Commercial drone pilot” vest too!

@leovilla855

5 жыл бұрын

That’s right

@Paolo-qe7lc

5 жыл бұрын

Also there is no such thing as recreational airspace

@goodjohnpanda3958

5 жыл бұрын

What is “recreational airspace” ?

@WendysNuts4u

5 жыл бұрын

@@goodjohnpanda3958 oh, is this the part when the guy who makes a good point gets knit picked from people that don't like what he said? it might hurt, but use your imagination and you should be able to decipher what I meant.

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

@IBB4U1

5 жыл бұрын

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

@Parabueto

5 жыл бұрын

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

@redryder6987

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@spotmom

5 жыл бұрын

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.....

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

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

@imahmud

5 жыл бұрын

Inside job.

@colejohnson66

5 жыл бұрын

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

@xipkore

5 жыл бұрын

@@ashleyjanit5052 kzread.info/dash/bejne/eGh3uo9ynM64fbQ.html

@rosemarydolliver

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly! Wake up folks!

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

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@ChrisKuhi

5 жыл бұрын

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

3 жыл бұрын

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

@joepie221

3 жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@soylientgreen8618

5 жыл бұрын

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

@mrtannzr

5 жыл бұрын

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

@GRPLiningServices

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eqh11K6CiL2-gqw.html

@koalatails6391

5 жыл бұрын

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

@maxsdad538

2 жыл бұрын

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?

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@visstar3335

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly your so right

@visstar3335

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

@@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!

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

5 жыл бұрын

that was a second drone in case the first test failed

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

Of course, this test was bullshit.

@MrMilkman29

5 жыл бұрын

Rotor blades and wings are completely different things.

@zackthebongripper7274

5 жыл бұрын

How. Explain.

@MrMilkman29

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

How many airplanes got damaged by drones so far?

@AngryStaffSgt

5 жыл бұрын

*ZERO*

@AngryStaffSgt

5 жыл бұрын

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

@deltajegga

5 жыл бұрын

confirmed? 1 helicopter.

@Paolo-qe7lc

5 жыл бұрын

VEHICLE VIOLENCE wrong look up the incidents

@Paolo-qe7lc

5 жыл бұрын

A helicopter did the other day filming a race

I fly an M20J. What’s scary is that the Mooney’s fuel tanks aren’t modular like most small airplanes. They just took part of the wing and sealed it off. If that happened to the leading edge of the fuel tank, you’d be down a tank and possibly have a fireball for a wing.... scary.

@mooosestang

5 жыл бұрын

I think history tells us that you are more likely to crash from mechanical failure in that small plane than a drone or bird strike. That's all you guy. you won't get me in one of those. Every other day one is crashing here in florida.

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.

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@nospam-hn7xm

5 жыл бұрын

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

@keegansponholz9260

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Did they freeze it?

@sfsaviation

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

Thank God they have dji care refresh

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

5 жыл бұрын

ashley arundel they are close enough for their point

@ashleyarundel3134

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@martinfahrer4971

5 жыл бұрын

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

I love the conjecture here. The whole point is testing then he goes on to say ‘if it had been a faster commercial airplane there would have been substantial more damage” Test at higher speeds, do not offer your opinion. Ugh.

@theorange8915

5 жыл бұрын

It's not conjecture. If you knew anything about physics (he even explained in the video) you would know that increased velocity of an object has an exponential effect on its kinetic energy.

@joefunk1611

5 жыл бұрын

the Orange you seriously just said that? You don’t know who you are talking to. Why not just test at 5 MPH and then say same thing? Yeaaa. That’s why

@Thunderbyrd.

5 жыл бұрын

It was still just his opinion, just as Joe Funk stated. The word substantial is relative. And, an opinion. Without the actual test data or (recorded actual events documented and witnessed) at those higher speeds is still just an opinion. Joe Funk is correct.

@theorange8915

5 жыл бұрын

@@joefunk1611 I never said that no one should ever test. I said that it isn't congecture to say there will be a lot more damaging considering physics. If you don't understand physics that is fine though.

@joefunk1611

5 жыл бұрын

the Orange you are laughable. Someone who understood physics as well as I do would not get bent out of shape enough to respond like that. It is absolutely conjecture! What if the result of higher speeds is that that drone is obliterated and the wing less damaged? I’m not suggesting it would, but that it needs to be tested not put out there as FUD! You attack a persons knowledge without reason to get ‘personal’. By doing so you reveal the type of person you are. There is an attack going on right now on drones by nefarious people lobbying for far too heavy regulation. You are part of the problem I hope you grow up.

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

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.

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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

@tiagomatheusschneider7264

3 жыл бұрын

De fato

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.

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@straybubbles7334

5 жыл бұрын

Just searched on KZread for drone strikes airplane.

@calliarcale

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

and you get fake videos

I wouldn't say that the phantom 2 is a popular consumer drone for today. Also a phantom 4 weighs much more.

@Network126

5 жыл бұрын

I can't even afford one. I was barely able to afford my tiny Tello drone.

@billybbob18

5 жыл бұрын

@@parttimecripple Wrong. There's plenty of phantom footage above the clouds. DJI control links can go for miles. 10,000 feet on a DJI wouldn't surprise me much. Having enough battery to fly back down would. DJI stuff is a danger to our hobby.

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

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

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

@DutchPortal

5 жыл бұрын

In that case you get spammed by traffic alerts

@jakegarrett8109

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

@@jakegarrett8109 Made my day.

@pdtech4524

5 жыл бұрын

@@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

5 жыл бұрын

​@@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!

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

5 жыл бұрын

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.

That a Mooney M20 wing? Would like to see the experiment repeated on a much much stronger jet wing or a composite wing with a stainless steel leading edge?

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

@connor8560

5 жыл бұрын

Not Shaken they didnt cut through

@notshaken7269

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@roidroid

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

Drones has been used against Venezuela dictator

@MatHolliday

5 жыл бұрын

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.

Now how accurate is this testing, it is in a closed enviorment with no wind so it is not accurate at all.

Watching this before take off. Nice recommendations KZread.

Require a ADS-B transponder on everything. But I'd be more interested in a few windscreen impacts...

@kBIT01

5 жыл бұрын

Require ads-b on birds too

@FirstDagger

5 жыл бұрын

Especially that F-16 canopy @ 0:36 (left border of the image)

@redsquirrelftw

5 жыл бұрын

I would love this, have strict enough drone rules for general use (though not AS strict as now), but make an exception where if you register it and have ADS-B, you are less restricted. Of course you would need to ensure you give right of way to planes and there would also be a requirement that you have an ADS-B "Radar" view while you fly etc. Instead of outright banning them (practically what they did here in Canada) they should work with both drone pilots and airline pilots so both planes and drones can coexist.

@MatHelm

5 жыл бұрын

Scissors95, OK then, require eye's, ears, self awareness (like a bird) on the drone, while the pilot stands under a large rock that will drop on him if he loses contact with his drone... Or like I said, a chip the size of your thumbnail that broadcast short range GPS data to other ADS-B receivers...

Nope. This is what happens when you launch a DJI Phantom with a *canon* at the static wing. How many drone users have access to a canon? Also, airflow and real life conditions were ignored. Birds sport bones too, as they are more than goo cylinders. In real life, there are basically zero model-to-1:1 meaningful events but many deaths/year caused by pilot error and aircraft failure in commercial, private and military aircraft.

@Horace1993

5 жыл бұрын

Pașca Alexandru that is correct. The wing is not moving and the event would be different if the wing and the done were moving. Not sure how significant the difference in result would be with this test. I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this but the battery entering the wing could be a concern as that being crushed may result in a release of energy that causes further damage

@aval1998

5 жыл бұрын

They have canon cameras, nerd

@zackthebongripper7274

5 жыл бұрын

It's a political ploy to regulate.

@stevess7777

5 жыл бұрын

aval1998 So what's your point? Canon (company) has nothing to do with an air cannon.

@Make-Asylums-Great-Again

5 жыл бұрын

That’s how I take off , via cannon and I only take off when a large airplane is directly overhead.

Just a dumb question Wouldnt the air or wind infront of that wing pushed that drone up or down since the wings pushed the aur to go up or down that structure?

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.

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

@Reiflexx

5 жыл бұрын

... Yes. Thanks for playing, next.

@straybubbles7334

5 жыл бұрын

It's. Called magic

@savagecub

5 жыл бұрын

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

@choughed3072

5 жыл бұрын

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

@savagecub

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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

5 жыл бұрын

It's a political ploy to regulate.

@MrMilkman29

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@MrMilkman29

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

back to physics i would say. its the same

I don't have a drone but don't they already have something build into them that prevents from flying into restricted space where a plane might be passing by? Or is that only on high end ones? I guess if someone makes one themselves then that's different story.

@koalatails6391

5 жыл бұрын

Krazykov, you are correct, dji products have built in geofencing that prevents them from flying too high, or into restricted areas like airports, most other manufacturers don’t have this. Plus there is third party apps available to use with dji products that eliminates the geofencing. Still the media like to blame these incidents on someone who has bought a dji Phantom from a department store & has no idea what they are doing.

No sir, YOU hit my drone with your plane!

Not a bad study, but limited by the sample size. Risks of birds and drones look largely comparable(but birds are more likely to be in a flock). You could also argue that new aircraft should be designed to better withstand these impacts(it would help against bird strike too). The best defence is to stop flying below 400feet where drones are likely to be. Or to issue a NOTAM if you do.

@WendysNuts4u

5 жыл бұрын

absolutely! ☺️ 👍

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

@Delta-1X-Ray

5 жыл бұрын

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

5 жыл бұрын

I don't fly drones, I fly quads.

@alancolvin3283

5 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

2:53 I don't think birds impact like jelly

@kolokolok

5 жыл бұрын

The jelly is meant to represent a similar density to that of the bird.

@vrg1337

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah. They should have just used a real bird.

@alvinlty

5 жыл бұрын

@@kolokolok But real birds also have hard parts (eg the beak, bones) which penetrate the structure of the wing more than jelly

@Airtruksrus

5 жыл бұрын

A duck will make a clean hole punched through a leading edge slat, through the other leading edge behind and makes a mess to clean up when compressed against the main spar. The EA-6b Prowler was also traveling around 300 kts.

@josephgraybill1630

5 жыл бұрын

Most birds have hollow bones. University of Dayton is a world leader in bird strike research, I think they know what they are doing.

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

2 жыл бұрын

Some drone operators don't actually give a shit

Cool video, we need more of this kind of testing

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...

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

@sakuraturbo3364

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

This is incredibly disingenuous. No plane will be flying at 230 kts at even extremely high drone altitudes. The maximum speed you are allowed to fly an aircraft under 10,000 feet is 250kts, and a mooney can't go anywhere near that fast, with a Do-Not-Exceed speed of only 165 kts.

@jamesp13152

5 жыл бұрын

Agree, I think he was combining full speed ahead on the drone.

@possiblyadickhead6653

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesp13152 the drone was said to be stationary

@buddyclem7328

5 жыл бұрын

And 230 Kts < 250 Kts. There are other, faster planes in the sky, like jets.

@zackthebongripper7274

5 жыл бұрын

It's a political ploy to regulate.

@roidroid

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesp13152 if the drone was at full speed it would have hit at a much steeper angle, perhaps being split in twain rather than penetrating into the wing (who knows, i'd like to see)

I was so relieved that they didn't use a real bird for the testing!

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.

This dude is talking as if it'd be common for some plane to hit a drone in excess of 238 miles per hour yet no plane is allowed to exceed 230 below 10,000 ft (unless you're in the middle of NOWHERE) so I'll wait til a phantom can go 10,001' before I'm concerned.

@JasonLastName

5 жыл бұрын

Creeperownr keywords “closing speed”.

@NETBotic

5 жыл бұрын

250 knots indicated airspeed below 10,000. Plenty of aircraft doing those speeds around here at least. Add in 40 mph max speed for the drone and I'd say their numbers are within reason.

@experimental_av

5 жыл бұрын

The limit is 250 knots which is about 290 mph, the tested speed was 200 knots which is not uncommon with GA planes.

@bdanza

5 жыл бұрын

You mean 250 Knots indicated, or 288 mph indicated, or 315 mph true airspeed at 5000 ft (yes there are many airports in the US at 5000 ft). Then put a 30 mph closing speed for a phantom and you have well above 230. I know, I know... Facts are hard

@StratoArt

5 жыл бұрын

No, you didn't understand. That's the closing speed between the two aircraft if the aircraft was traveling at a forward rate plus the drone's forward rate - that speed is approx. 238 mph - a combined impact speed.

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

I love drones, I cried

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

5 жыл бұрын

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

@EasternExplorer

5 жыл бұрын

Learn to take a joke

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.

I think real damage would be very different and to accurately test you would have to shoot the wing at the drone finding less damage to aircraft

How much skill do you have to have to hit a aircraft going 600mph tens of thousands of feet up in the air with a drone going at top speed of 20 mph that is made to take pictures

LMAO a drone in no way goes that fast.