Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

How much damage?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.
View Poll Results: How much damage?
No damage
2.13%
Minor damage not causing a loss of power
9.57%
Major damage causing loss of power and/or possible engine shut down.
88.30%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

How much damage?

Old 04-02-2015, 08:41 PM
  #51  
308jockey
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I think the original question was how much damage would it do, not is it right or wrong to operate in that environment. I guarantee you if a 2 pound quad gets sucked into a turbine on final, no matter how many engines there are, a bunch of lights and warning horns are going to be going off in the cockpit and the engine will sustain major damage rendering it unairworthy.

Rick H.
Old 04-03-2015, 02:13 AM
  #52  
JohnMac
 
JohnMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Ah Yes, the FAA should crack down on flock of birds. Throw the book at them I say.
The problem is that the Quad can be flown by a local village idiot, and often are. The technology has de-skilled the process of flying an unmanned air vehicle, so that said idiot, who either does not know or does not care about the consequences of his actions, can partake. To the public, and I suspect the authorities, they will not be able to differentiate between what we do, and what the village idiot does.
John
Old 04-03-2015, 07:29 AM
  #53  
f16man
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MANTECA, CA
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
It would cause damage, but if only a two pound quad the engine would most likely keep running. The hardness of the material almost doesn't matter at these speeds. Also the engines can take very significant hail damage and ice is hard.
Bro your supposed to share the good stuff you'r smoking, ha ha
Old 04-03-2015, 07:29 AM
  #54  
edh13
My Feedback: (9)
 
edh13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnMac
Ah Yes, the FAA should crack down on flock of birds. Throw the book at them I say.
The problem is that the Quad can be flown by a local village idiot, and often are. The technology has de-skilled the process of flying an unmanned air vehicle, so that said idiot, who either does not know or does not care about the consequences of his actions, can partake. To the public, and I suspect the authorities, they will not be able to differentiate between what we do, and what the village idiot does.
John
Perfectly said. The problem for us yanks; the one special interest organization that is supposed to be protecting model airplane enthusiast is embracing these village idiots like a long lost rich uncle, dressing them up for the family photo. You bet the authorities and public will not be able to tell us apart. When said village idiot finally stuffs his FPV gee-wiz machine into an inbound jumbo the hammer won’t be selective.
Eric
Old 04-03-2015, 07:54 AM
  #55  
f16man
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MANTECA, CA
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by edh13
Perfectly said. The problem for us yanks; the one special interest organization that is supposed to be protecting model airplane enthusiast is embracing these village idiots like a long lost rich uncle, dressing them up for the family photo. You bet the authorities and public will not be able to tell us apart. When said village idiot finally stuffs his FPV gee-wiz machine into an inbound jumbo the hammer won’t be selective.
Eric
I hear you loud and clear sir!!!
Old 04-03-2015, 09:01 AM
  #56  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by f16man
Bro your supposed to share the good stuff you'r smoking, ha ha

You need to read the link of the certification standards. Modern airliner engines are supposed to take an 8 pound bird strike and keep running. Not at full power mind you and not without issues, but it will not quit and not for a while.
Old 04-03-2015, 09:04 AM
  #57  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by edh13
Perfectly said. The problem for us yanks; the one special interest organization that is supposed to be protecting model airplane enthusiast is embracing these village idiots like a long lost rich uncle, dressing them up for the family photo. You bet the authorities and public will not be able to tell us apart. When said village idiot finally stuffs his FPV gee-wiz machine into an inbound jumbo the hammer won’t be selective.
Eric
So now you are classifying the AMAer who strapped a camera with transmitter on his model as a village idiot? To my knowledge none of these people have caused a problem. I think you need a better understanding of what is going on!
Old 04-03-2015, 09:17 AM
  #58  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Since we are talking about a hypothetical situation (thankfully, so far anyway) let's consider a B777 for example.
(let's not go into worse case scenario...no loss of life)
Powered by 2 GE90's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90
Let's say the "2 pound quad" goes through an engine...
Whether some bits and pieces go through the core, well...who knows...we will find out later.

IIRC a GE90 cost about 14 MILLION USD...
If something like the above scenario were to take place, the B777 is grounded while it is checked for additional damage and the engine would have to be removed...and a replacement hung in it's place.
We don't know the extent of the damage until the overhaul facility disassembles the engine, but the Airline, and the Insurance Co. are not going to be happy about it.

I don't know how much revenue the Airline would lose while a triple seven is down for maint. but speaking from first hand experience with A320's...it was approx $30K per day per plane in 2011 when Frontier Airlines had a bunch of them damaged by hail. I worked on 3 of them while they were in the hangar.
A B777 would potentially lose a lot more than 30K per day in lost revenue...

Etc. etc. etc....
LOTS of $$$
Airline and Insurance Co. really mad...and no mention of the number of man hours of labor charges to do the maint. on the aircraft.

If the guy flying the quad was nabbed...he would have a lot of people really bugged with him...aye?

Last edited by proptop; 04-03-2015 at 09:24 AM.
Old 04-03-2015, 10:55 AM
  #59  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Good point proptop!
Old 04-03-2015, 12:06 PM
  #60  
f16man
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MANTECA, CA
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
You need to read the link of the certification standards. Modern airliner engines are supposed to take an 8 pound bird strike and keep running. Not at full power mind you and not without issues, but it will not quit and not for a while.
It may not shut down completely but if power is down after the ingestion[ most likely] the overloaded aircraft [most likely] may have a bit more trouble making the runway......[ 8pound bird strike] not toy quad copter

Last edited by f16man; 04-03-2015 at 12:13 PM.
Old 04-03-2015, 12:24 PM
  #61  
f16man
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MANTECA, CA
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

So an 8 pound bird [ meat and hollow thin bones] and say a 8 pound bag of plastic ,metal ,lipos, servos ect. would do the same damage to the compressor blades ?
Old 04-03-2015, 02:39 PM
  #62  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by f16man
So an 8 pound bird [ meat and hollow thin bones] and say a 8 pound bag of plastic ,metal ,lipos, servos ect. would do the same damage to the compressor blades ?
There would not be much difference. The metal would nick and cut the blades, but most blades are broken from impact of mass and velocity and the hardness would not matter for that. And the engines will run with near full capacity with nicked blades, but would require replacement.
Old 04-03-2015, 04:22 PM
  #63  
BobbyMcGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

There's an old joke about testing how well a train windshield can withstand an impact from a chicken. The joke goes on about firing a frozen chicken from a canon onto a train windshield. But the chicken goes through the windshield and into the conductors compartment. Thus, possibly killing the conductor/engineer of the train. Then the company writes back to NASA and says that the windshield cannot sustain the impact. Whereas, NASA writes back, "Thaw the chicken." ----- That's the punch line of the joke... Well, The MythBusters took on this task to see if there was any truth to the joke.

As it turned out, The MythBusters proved that a thawed chicken will do MORE DAMAGE to a windshield than a frozen chicken would.

Same applies to this poll. With several very hard components (battery and electric motors) in a Quad Copter, it's not unreasonable to assume that significant damage would be done to a turbine if one of these were ever ingested.

Bottom line ... None of us would want to (or could afford to) pay for the repairs to a turbine engine that one of these quad copters would cause.
Old 04-12-2015, 08:30 AM
  #64  
1320Fastback
Senior Member
 
1320Fastback's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Northern Occupied Mexico, CA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Why doesn't RR, GE or the FAA test a running motor against a Phantom ingestion?
Old 04-12-2015, 10:05 AM
  #65  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1320Fastback
Why doesn't RR, GE or the FAA test a running motor against a Phantom ingestion?
Well, why bother? Any foriegn object can do damage.
Old 04-12-2015, 02:36 PM
  #66  
ramboamt
My Feedback: (36)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sure lets just cough up $16,000,000 to see if it will fail just for the heck of it. Birds are allot more prevalent than Quadcopters that is why they test for birds NOT Quadcopters. SMH....
Old 04-13-2015, 07:14 PM
  #67  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Who could possibly be pretentious enough to say with absolute certainty WHAT would happen...?
Who could possibly be this foolish as well....?


Maybe THIS is the response that the OP is looking for...?
Old 04-13-2015, 07:44 PM
  #68  
Bozarth
My Feedback: (15)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

combatpigg,

Whether your response is what the OP was looking for or not, it is the best!

Kurt
Old 04-13-2015, 08:53 PM
  #69  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Thanks Kurt..[I want you to know that you have VERY good taste in commenting ].......

I can't think of anything else to say about this subject [without the risk of revealing how little I know about it]..so have great fun this summer punching holes in your sky up there in Aurora..! I always liked playing softball in Colorado, I'll bet it adds 30 feet to your best shot at sea level..
Old 04-14-2015, 01:30 AM
  #70  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,520
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
A sailor is a lot lager than any sUAV. Also military aircraft do not undergo the same design and testing as an airliner engine.
Actually, they test a military engines and airframes more extensively than a commercial due to the fact that they are subjected to higher airspeeds(in most cases), higher G and wing loads. Being a former "Prowler" com/nav/radar tech, I participated in several class C and D inspections. The flight hour interval requirements for these inspections was roughly four times more often as the FAA requires for a commercial jetliner.
As far as what can destroy a turbine engine, I saw a standard "BIC" stick pen destroy an engine in an F-14 Tomcat while that engine was running at idle. On the flip side, I watched a man sucked into the engine of a S-3 Viking, running at high RPM, up to his waist, (the rest was spit out the front) and the engine still ran. Needless to say, it was removed from the aircraft with the only damage being to the front fan due to the safety helmet we were required to wear on the flight deck and when off the ground/deck.
Old 04-14-2015, 03:28 AM
  #71  
804
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
Who could possibly be pretentious enough to say with absolute certainty WHAT would happen...?
Who could possibly be this foolish as well....?


Maybe THIS is the response that the OP is looking for...?
It was a crafty way of proving just who
is foolish and pretentious enough to predict an outcome, especially
if the prediction was little to no damage.
Of those making that prediction, who would be willing
to volunteer to fly or ride in a jet actually testing the hypothesis?
That is the real test of intelligence.
Old 04-14-2015, 05:29 AM
  #72  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
Who could possibly be pretentious enough to say with absolute certainty WHAT would happen...?
Who could possibly be this foolish as well....?


Maybe THIS is the response that the OP is looking for...?
As the OP I’ll offer this; There have been many posters on various threads trivializing the damage a quad might make to a commercial airliner. I wondered if there was anyone that truly believed that and at present it looks like 3% believe there wouldn’t be any damage with another 7% believing only minor damage. This does not prove anything but it puts some numbers on the believers and the non-believers.

Frank
Old 04-14-2015, 06:47 AM
  #73  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
As the OP I’ll offer this; There have been many posters on various threads trivializing the damage a quad might make to a commercial airliner. I wondered if there was anyone that truly believed that and at present it looks like 3% believe there wouldn’t be any damage with another 7% believing only minor damage. This does not prove anything but it puts some numbers on the believers and the non-believers.

Frank
Yes it does........................ however we all know that the question is unanswerable without specific facts about the mass of the drone, the impact speed, and where it strikes the aircraft. One fact a Air Force C-130 was damaged but able to land after being hit by a 185 lb 20 foot wingspan RQ7 Shadow drone. What damage would a Phantom I drone at 1200g and a 350 mm wingspan would have done to that wing of the C-130? Perhaps a dent in the leading edge.

I remember well when Lipo batteries first came out................... the doom sayers thought that explosions and fires would doom the RC industry. Some ignorant RC Clubs actually banned the use of Lipos. Interesting how the new and different is always perceived by some as a threat .........
Old 04-14-2015, 07:34 AM
  #74  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Yes it does........................ however we all know that the question is unanswerable without specific facts about the mass of the drone, the impact speed, and where it strikes the aircraft. One fact a Air Force C-130 was damaged but able to land after being hit by a 185 lb 20 foot wingspan RQ7 Shadow drone. What damage would a Phantom I drone at 1200g and a 350 mm wingspan would have done to that wing of the C-130? Perhaps a dent in the leading edge.

I remember well when Lipo batteries first came out................... the doom sayers thought that explosions and fires would doom the RC industry. Some ignorant RC Clubs actually banned the use of Lipos. Interesting how the new and different is always perceived by some as a threat .........
In spite of the damage or lack of, why would you want to put it in the path of that C130 or any other man carrying aircraft in the first place?

Frank
Old 04-14-2015, 07:39 AM
  #75  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
In spite of the damage or lack of, why would you want to put it in the path of that C130 or any other man carrying aircraft in the first place?

Frank
Of course not, but that is not the question in this threads poll, is it?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.