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.

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

Bro your supposed to share the good stuff you'r smoking, ha ha

I hear you loud and clear sir!!!

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.

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!

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?

Good point proptop!

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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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...?

combatpigg,

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

Kurt

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..

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.

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.

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 .........

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?