In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Drone Strike on Final
p3skyking
Member Posts: 23,916 ✭✭✭
This is the first one of these I've seen.
Ingested into an engine or a hit on a windscreen could be catastrophic.
Airports could jam drone freqs or planes could have jammers.
https://youtu.be/HtArLIXZXRI
Ingested into an engine or a hit on a windscreen could be catastrophic.
Airports could jam drone freqs or planes could have jammers.
https://youtu.be/HtArLIXZXRI
Comments
That could have turned out real, real bad.
Damn! Tore off the top of the winglet.
That could have turned out real, real bad.
I got on a plane going to OKC from St louis. Had a window seat on the wing. The winglet on that side was gone - looked a lot like the after shot of the one in the video. Obviously the airline/pilot/crew had no problem with it.
Talked with a buddy of mine who works at Boeing. He said those winglets just add a tad more stability in flight and it's no big deal when they are damaged like that.
I did read the comments on the vid. Seems the majority feel strongly that the vid is a fake.
Did anyone bother to read the comments?
I didn't until now.
Doesn't really change anything. In Cali, TV station helos and planes attacking wildfires have had to take evasive action because of drones.
Whether by design or accident, sooner or later a drone will bring down an aircraft.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
Winglets are there to dissipate/prevent wingtip vortices. The two benefits are to reduce turbulence behind the plane, and to increase lift while decreasing drag.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
True. But the fact remains that to register/pass laws against is taking the same road as the Libs on gun registration/confiscation.
The acts of a few idiots (and the above video is fake, just on the the fact that fuel does not flow through the winglet) should not prevent the lawful use of a drone.
So are the few on this board that are for registration/confiscation of drones, going to cherry pick when registration/confiscation is OK and when it is not?
This should get interesting/revealing!
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
Winglets are there to dissipate/prevent wingtip vortices. The two benefits are to reduce turbulence behind the plane, and to increase lift while decreasing drag.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
True. But the fact remains that to register/pass laws against is taking the same road as the Libs on gun registration/confiscation.
The acts of a few idiots (and the above video is fake, just on the the fact that fuel does not flow through the winglet) should not prevent the lawful use of a drone.
So are the few on this board that are for registration/confiscation of drones, going to cherry pick when registration/confiscation is OK and when it is not?
This should get interesting/revealing!
+1 thats what i have been saying
maybe a sign on the plane will work
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
Winglets are there to dissipate/prevent wingtip vortices. The two benefits are to reduce turbulence behind the plane, and to increase lift while decreasing drag.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
True. But the fact remains that to register/pass laws against is taking the same road as the Libs on gun registration/confiscation.
The acts of a few idiots (and the above video is fake, just on the the fact that fuel does not flow through the winglet) should not prevent the lawful use of a drone.
So are the few on this board that are for registration/confiscation of drones, going to cherry pick when registration/confiscation is OK and when it is not?
This should get interesting/revealing!
You start off with a 'fact' that is anything but. Unless I missed a section of the BoR, firearms and the right to bear them is covered. Drones are missing.
As such is the case, the regulation of drones and their use is a far different discussion. That said, I don't wish to see overbearing regulations compiled against drones and their use, but it serves no one to logically conflate firearms and drones during the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Alpine
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
Winglets are there to dissipate/prevent wingtip vortices. The two benefits are to reduce turbulence behind the plane, and to increase lift while decreasing drag.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
True. But the fact remains that to register/pass laws against is taking the same road as the Libs on gun registration/confiscation.
The acts of a few idiots (and the above video is fake, just on the the fact that fuel does not flow through the winglet) should not prevent the lawful use of a drone.
So are the few on this board that are for registration/confiscation of drones, going to cherry pick when registration/confiscation is OK and when it is not?
This should get interesting/revealing!
You start off with a 'fact' that is anything but. Unless I missed a section of the BoR, firearms and the right to bear them is covered. Drones are missing.
As such is the case, the regulation of drones and their use is a far different discussion. That said, I don't wish to see overbearing regulations compiled against drones and their use, but it serves no one to logically conflate firearms and drones during the discussion.
Yep,...just as driving is a privilege, and not a right. How many want five year olds driving on the interstate next to them?
quote:Originally posted by Alpine
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
Winglets are there to dissipate/prevent wingtip vortices. The two benefits are to reduce turbulence behind the plane, and to increase lift while decreasing drag.
The former benefit makes it safer for planes following behind (especially smaller planes) during approach and landing.
The latter benefit saves fuel during cruise. http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/winglets-and-wingtip-vortices/
Losing or damaging a winglet presents no particular control or structural problem, but it does ground the plane after landing until it can be fixed.
To the other issue: drones ARE a problem, and it is getting worse every day. As p3 says: sooner or later, there's going to be an inflight collision. The problem isn't the drone; it's the moron flying it.
True. But the fact remains that to register/pass laws against is taking the same road as the Libs on gun registration/confiscation.
The acts of a few idiots (and the above video is fake, just on the the fact that fuel does not flow through the winglet) should not prevent the lawful use of a drone.
So are the few on this board that are for registration/confiscation of drones, going to cherry pick when registration/confiscation is OK and when it is not?
This should get interesting/revealing!
You start off with a 'fact' that is anything but. Unless I missed a section of the BoR, firearms and the right to bear them is covered. Drones are missing.
As such is the case, the regulation of drones and their use is a far different discussion. That said, I don't wish to see overbearing regulations compiled against drones and their use, but it serves no one to logically conflate firearms and drones during the discussion.
Ahh but it does. The same mindset follows the same path. For the Libs the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists is just a bump in the road, a minor obstacle on the path to take away firearms.
Given the fact that since there have been more than one car on the road, there have been collisions between cars, since the time there was more than on plane in the air, there have been airplane crashes, and so it will just be a matter of time before drone vs. airplane happens.
Just don't be sitting on the side of the fence that supports confiscation of drones cause that is for whom the bell tolls.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
CGI and the speed is wrong. come on P3 yo know better!
* look like they're on 10 and he's going slow. That's why I thought he was on final. If he was going upstairs, he'd be burning the coal.
Regulating drones won't do much except generate records and lists. That doesn't do jack to stop someone determined to wreck havoc with one.
A proactive policy with a frequency agile jammer on aircraft and at both ends of the runways would suffice for drone area denial. Five or ten watts should be enough since while I don't know the max power on drone freqs, CB's were restricted to five watts.
Longer range results with less transmitter power needed.
Most drones use the same 2.4-2.8ghz frequencies as digital broadcast TV and wireless phone sets, instead of the 27-28mhz CB bands that old style radio controlled models use.
Using a Yagi-Uda highly directional antenna precludes the use of jammers, since the additional 8-15db gain drowns out local RFI.
Longer range results with less transmitter power needed.
Most drones use the same 2.4-2.8ghz frequencies as digital broadcast TV and wireless phone sets, instead of the 27-28mhz CB bands that old style radio controlled models use.
Besides the fact that the drone will only listen to the transmitter it is paired with and will ignore all other communications. If it does lose communications with the controller, it can be programed to Return To Launch. And also a drone can be sent on a mission with no input from the radio controller.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Using a Yagi-Uda highly directional antenna precludes the use of jammers, since the additional 8-15db gain drowns out local RFI.
Longer range results with less transmitter power needed.
Most drones use the same 2.4-2.8ghz frequencies as digital broadcast TV and wireless phone sets, instead of the 27-28mhz CB bands that old style radio controlled models use.
Besides the fact that the drone will only listen to the transmitter it is paired with and will ignore all other communications. If it does lose communications with the controller, it can be programed to Return To Launch. And also a drone can be sent on a mission with no input from the radio controller.
A jammer wouldn't need to control a drone, merely disrupt the commands it's given. The term "frequency agile" means it changes the transmitting frequency and regardless of the drone having a signal discriminator, you flood a frequency and you corrupt it's commands.
Unless a drone has radar, it needs someone to manually control it to attack aircraft.
Since all that's needed is to deny airspace around airports to drone, some smart guy needs to build a .22 or .410 Phalanx system. [;)]