time to stop the dromes..........NOW
02-12-2015, 10:25 PM
#651
My Feedback: (211)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sun City,
AZ
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement that either a "bird strike" or a "drone strike" will destroy a turbin engine is false. It depends on the size/weight of the bird or drone.
In fact modern jet engines are designed to withstand the ingestion of a bird up to 4lb.
So just what was the actual danger from a "little bitty red drone"?
In fact modern jet engines are designed to withstand the ingestion of a bird up to 4lb.
So just what was the actual danger from a "little bitty red drone"?
Last edited by DISCUS54; 02-12-2015 at 10:36 PM.
02-13-2015, 04:00 AM
#652
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand the insistence of comparing birds to Quad copters (Drones). Don’t they teach physics in schools any longer? Does anyone understand the differences in mass and density between organic birds with small brittle bones and the metal, carbon fiber and camera stuff in these quad copters (drones) not to mention the explosive nature of the LiPos? Would anyone care to be a pilot or passenger in a plane with a destroyed LiPo pack embedded in a wing LE or penetrating into the cockpit? While there has yet to be a known collision between a quad copter (drone) and a full scale aircraft, civil or commercial, I believe it is just a matter of time before one occurs. May or may not be any injury’s but I’m willing to bet there will be damage and the damage will be greater than any bird of the same weight.
Frank
Frank
02-13-2015, 04:35 AM
#653
I know for a fact the smaller UAV's will not stop a modern commercial jet engine built since the 80's. A T37 or T38 perhaps, but that is not the discussion. Now I am not saying that the UAV should not be there nor that there are no danger whatsoever, just that there is too much concern. A modern airliner engine will withstand a bird strike to 6 pounds. That is a large buzzard or a small goose. Here are the standards.
Engine Certification Standards
Current standards, for both multiple and single bird engine ingestions into a single fixed wing aircraft engine, exist in equivalent form in 14 CFR Part 33-77 and in EASA Airworthiness Code CS-E 800 ’Bird Strike and Ingestion’. The basic requirements for engine ingestion were revised in 2000 to take account of both evidence of an increase in the size of birds impacting aircraft and issues raised by the development of very large inlet, high by pass ratio, engines. The requirements, to be demonstrated by testing, are, in outline, now as follows:
Current standards, for both multiple and single bird engine ingestions into a single fixed wing aircraft engine, exist in equivalent form in 14 CFR Part 33-77 and in EASA Airworthiness Code CS-E 800 ’Bird Strike and Ingestion’. The basic requirements for engine ingestion were revised in 2000 to take account of both evidence of an increase in the size of birds impacting aircraft and issues raised by the development of very large inlet, high by pass ratio, engines. The requirements, to be demonstrated by testing, are, in outline, now as follows:
- That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, ingestion of a single bird of maximum weight between 1.8kg3.968 lbs
0.0018 tonnes and 3.65kg8.047 lbs
0.00365 tonnes dependent upon engine inlet area shall not cause an engine to catch fire, suffer uncontained failure or become impossible to shut down and shall enable at least 50% thrust to be obtained for at least 14 minutes after ingestion. These requirements to be met with no thrust lever movement on an affected engine until at least 15 seconds have elapsed post impact.
- That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, ingestion of a single bird of maximum weight 1.35kg2.976 lbs
0.00135 tonnes shall not cause a sustained thrust or power loss of more than 25%, shall not require engine shut down within 5 minutes and shall not result in hazardous engine condition.
- That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up to 7 medium sized birds of various sizes between weight 0.35kg0.772 lbs
3.5e-4 tonnes and weight 1.15kg2.535 lbs
0.00115 tonnes, with the number and size depending upon the engine inlet area, shall not cause the engine to suddenly and completely fail and it shall continue to deliver usable but slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period of 20 minutes after ingestion. [Engines with inlet sizes of less than 0.2 m[SUP]2[/SUP] (300 square inches) only have to meet the standard for a single bird of this weight]
- That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up to 16 small sized birds of weight 0.85kg1.874 lbs
8.5e-4 tonnes, with the number dependent upon the engine inlet area, shall not cause the engine to suddenly and completely fail and it shall continue to deliver usable but slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period of 20 minutes after ingestion. [Direct testing to this standard may not be required if the medium bird multiple standard is demonstrated or if this bird size can pass the inlet guide vanes into the rotor blades]
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 02-13-2015 at 04:45 AM.
02-13-2015, 04:51 AM
#654
A T-37 does not cruise very fast, about 250 KIAS if I recall. I did not fly it as a pilot, but a 130 hours as a student. As I stated, the IP that was killed was on final approach, not at cruise. The T-37 was a "L" of a lot slower than any of the big jets. In any case that argument is not valid for this discussion.
My 41 years and some 20,000 +/- flying hours have little bearing on the subject here other than it helps me when providing some experience. In any case to think that the "little thing cannot cause a problem in a Jet Engine" is simply typical of the unlearned. My experience does provide - to me at least - information that any pilot-less air-machine is capable of doing serious damage to any other aircraft. Today, FAA is so much on "Fly the auto-pilot', so many of the younger pilots, and some of the older "?" pilots are so head-in-the-cockpit they have no conception of what is out there in front. It is, to me, a very sad state of affairs. On the other hand I had two
co-pilots along the way, that simply could not fly and look outside at the same time. One was ex-USAF -- bad!. The other was a lady, except in the cock-pit. YUCK!
She could fly the glide-slope and make an OK landing most of the time. Getting her to find the glideslope, well that was a whol-'nother ball game.
Way off topic here, but some of you fellows don't look ahead very well, don't have a lot of experience in air-traffic situations,and when these RC folks are only interested in, "WOW, Look at that thing go". Without experience of possible serious incidents, those that have little concern of what "....that thing.... could do...", well I do get concerned. I don't want any of the family or friends to get hurt in an airliner crash or the FAA to get involved big time. There is a need to keep things safe,
yet for those that like this stuff, I hope they get to do it. Those outside AMA Clubs will provide the largest problems. The congress will do whatever the money-handlers hand them to do. If you are AMA, I suggest you stay there and try to see that AMA does more than play big-time. Keep up with who does what and keep your attention to this forum. Lots to "assist" the AMA Staff especially in the new AMA Foundation.
My 41 years and some 20,000 +/- flying hours have little bearing on the subject here other than it helps me when providing some experience. In any case to think that the "little thing cannot cause a problem in a Jet Engine" is simply typical of the unlearned. My experience does provide - to me at least - information that any pilot-less air-machine is capable of doing serious damage to any other aircraft. Today, FAA is so much on "Fly the auto-pilot', so many of the younger pilots, and some of the older "?" pilots are so head-in-the-cockpit they have no conception of what is out there in front. It is, to me, a very sad state of affairs. On the other hand I had two
co-pilots along the way, that simply could not fly and look outside at the same time. One was ex-USAF -- bad!. The other was a lady, except in the cock-pit. YUCK!
She could fly the glide-slope and make an OK landing most of the time. Getting her to find the glideslope, well that was a whol-'nother ball game.
Way off topic here, but some of you fellows don't look ahead very well, don't have a lot of experience in air-traffic situations,and when these RC folks are only interested in, "WOW, Look at that thing go". Without experience of possible serious incidents, those that have little concern of what "....that thing.... could do...", well I do get concerned. I don't want any of the family or friends to get hurt in an airliner crash or the FAA to get involved big time. There is a need to keep things safe,
yet for those that like this stuff, I hope they get to do it. Those outside AMA Clubs will provide the largest problems. The congress will do whatever the money-handlers hand them to do. If you are AMA, I suggest you stay there and try to see that AMA does more than play big-time. Keep up with who does what and keep your attention to this forum. Lots to "assist" the AMA Staff especially in the new AMA Foundation.
02-13-2015, 05:27 AM
#655
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: grand rapids, MI
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our club is embracing the quadcopters. This season they are planning SAR fun flys. One member is going to use his quad for search and mark of other fliers models that land in the corn. Our club heli night has essentially become club rotor night.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drome", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drome", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
02-13-2015, 06:10 AM
#656
Our club is embracing the quadcopters. This season they are planning SAR fun flys. One member is going to use his quad for search and mark of other fliers models that land in the corn. Our club heli night has essentially become club rotor night.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drome", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drome", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
02-13-2015, 06:13 AM
#657
Our club is embracing the quadcopters. This season they are planning SAR fun flys. One member is going to use his quad for search and mark of other fliers models that land in the corn. Our club heli night has essentially become club rotor night.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drone", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
Our local hobby shop is directing people who buy quads to our club website, fly safe literature, etc. The owner said it has been the fastest growing and most profitable part of his business the last 24 months. If it's bringing people into the hobby, so be it. There are always going to be people that fly stupid, whether it be a "drone", ugly stik, t-rex, park flier, model jet, full size cessna.
02-13-2015, 06:17 AM
#658
I do not understand the insistence of comparing birds to Quad copters (Drones). Don’t they teach physics in schools any longer? Does anyone understand the differences in mass and density between organic birds with small brittle bones and the metal, carbon fiber and camera stuff in these quad copters (drones) not to mention the explosive nature of the LiPos? Would anyone care to be a pilot or passenger in a plane with a destroyed LiPo pack embedded in a wing LE or penetrating into the cockpit? While there has yet to be a known collision between a quad copter (drone) and a full scale aircraft, civil or commercial, I believe it is just a matter of time before one occurs. May or may not be any injury’s but I’m willing to bet there will be damage and the damage will be greater than any bird of the same weight.
Frank
Frank
02-13-2015, 07:01 AM
#659
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I do applaud the effort 90% of these sold will never make it to a club field. If they do when faced with club and AMA dues they will just go back to where they were flying before. We tried to get folks to bring them out didn't work very well. Most who buy these it will just be a passing fad nothing more. If they have issues or crash it they will just toss it in the pile of junk they have bought on a whim. I don't have the answer on how to correct this problem.
here's a perfect example of more money than sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szTkg_78sF0
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 02-13-2015 at 07:12 AM.
02-13-2015, 09:03 AM
#662
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: austin, TX
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that a drone could be used as a weapon, very easy to do in fact. That is the reason the FAA is getting involved.
Drones can also be used to invade someone privacy just as easy. We all know this if one thinks a minute before getting upset.
People use good thing for bad reason and ya cant deny that fact. So the question is how can we fix it? anyone have an ideal?
I agree it is people where the problem is at.
Drones can also be used to invade someone privacy just as easy. We all know this if one thinks a minute before getting upset.
People use good thing for bad reason and ya cant deny that fact. So the question is how can we fix it? anyone have an ideal?
I agree it is people where the problem is at.
02-13-2015, 09:42 AM
#665
Myself included. However Homland is the one pushing FAA on the TSR's. They are the ones concerned. Again I feel the concern is more than it deserves. You just can't carry a large bomb. You could kill more people with a gun.
02-13-2015, 09:45 AM
#666
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that a drone could be used as a weapon, very easy to do in fact. That is the reason the FAA is getting involved.
Drones can also be used to invade someone privacy just as easy. We all know this if one thinks a minute before getting upset.
People use good thing for bad reason and ya cant deny that fact. So the question is how can we fix it? anyone have an ideal?
I agree it is people where the problem is at.
Drones can also be used to invade someone privacy just as easy. We all know this if one thinks a minute before getting upset.
People use good thing for bad reason and ya cant deny that fact. So the question is how can we fix it? anyone have an ideal?
I agree it is people where the problem is at.
The difference is that a quad requires a lot of skill to operate in comparison. They can't carry much weight unless you start designing and building a custom machine, in which case it's just gotten even harder to do.
Privacy too is more hype than reality. Multirotors aren't exactly quiet (they're very loud in fact), and cameras that make it easy to fly (wide angle lenses) make it impossible to "snoop" unless you are literally ten feet from the subject, creating an immense racket and easily within "swattable" distance.
Not to mention the costs involved when a GoPro on a stick would be far easier and effective to use.
The FAA is interested in regulation because the technology has the potential to be a multi-billion dollar industry, and they're realizing that they are lightyears behind the rest of the world when it comes to creating the laws we need to keep the public safe. I don't know about you, but I don't want an airborne Wild West >400 AGL.
02-13-2015, 11:03 AM
#672
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: rhinelander, WI
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These drone's are not new; we used drones in the late 1950's as targets for the missile's we fired at whitesands.
The military has full sized fighter jets used as drones for testing.
The railroad use's remote controlled diesel switch engines in the freight yards "don't get in front of the blue ones"
And some people feel all thing's can be weapon platforms!
We should look into practical uses of these drones they are here to stay, and for work and play too.
The military has full sized fighter jets used as drones for testing.
The railroad use's remote controlled diesel switch engines in the freight yards "don't get in front of the blue ones"
And some people feel all thing's can be weapon platforms!
We should look into practical uses of these drones they are here to stay, and for work and play too.
02-13-2015, 11:47 AM
#673
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These drone's are not new; we used drones in the late 1950's as targets for the missile's we fired at whitesands.
The military has full sized fighter jets used as drones for testing.
The railroad use's remote controlled diesel switch engines in the freight yards "don't get in front of the blue ones"
And some people feel all thing's can be weapon platforms!
We should look into practical uses of these drones they are here to stay, and for work and play too.
The military has full sized fighter jets used as drones for testing.
The railroad use's remote controlled diesel switch engines in the freight yards "don't get in front of the blue ones"
And some people feel all thing's can be weapon platforms!
We should look into practical uses of these drones they are here to stay, and for work and play too.
02-13-2015, 12:05 PM
#674
you guys its just a mater of time when the terrorists start using some thing like one of the bigger quad copters to carry a nuke in to a stadim
and there is not much we can do about it do to the fact these things are sold every where . personally I think they should be taken off the
market
and there is not much we can do about it do to the fact these things are sold every where . personally I think they should be taken off the
market
02-13-2015, 12:12 PM
#675
I have been closely following the comments about this very serious issue of drones and “Hossfly” has hit it on the head....drones or whatever we choose to call them are here to stay. I am an officer in the club in my area and our meeting is tonight and I am going to propose a motion to ban all drone flying at our field. At least we can prevent our club from being accused of proliferating the reckless flying of drones at our club's field buy banning their use entirely. I would encourage all the other clubs to take similar action ad perhaps the only people flying the drones will be the "outlaws" and not associated with any legitimate club.
Better change your Handle to "ANTY" Quad I don't even realize what u are about to do. U would not understand if some one tried to explain it to U either.