41–50 of 57 posts
Is there anything preventing manufacturers from limiting the height drones can fly? I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it seems quite necessary.
This might be a naive question, but what would happen if a hobby drone collided with a jet? As long as it doesn't hit the engines, wouldn't the damage be negligible?
One thing to remember is that commercial jets have very thin aluminum skin. It's very unlike your car door which is typically thicker steel sheet. When jets crash the wreckage is shredded metal laying flat on the ground. So they're more fragile than they seem.
The latest jet liners A380 / 787 are made from composites, even their body.
Many other craft have composite wings.
Is there anything preventing manufacturers from limiting the height drones can fly? I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it seems quite necessary.
This might be a naive question, but what would happen if a hobby drone collided with a jet? As long as it doesn't hit the engines, wouldn't the damage be negligible?
One word, birds. We hit them frequently, and a goose weighs a lot more than most drones. This is panicking over shark attacks while commuting in your car while smoking cigarettes. Sure we need to set limits, but most of this is FUD.
One possibility is to limit the weight of the drones, which will limit the damage they can inflict.
However, I think there are too many entitled asses that pretty much think they can do whatever they want. You wouldn't believe th number of drones they now have flying at cars and coffee events. I'm also fairly certain that none of these drone operators have insurance so imagine the scenario of drone operator (likely without a whole lot of experience) + many expensive cars (but that's not the point). Not gonna end well.
Sooner or later, a drone strike will happen if left unchecked.
Is there anything preventing manufacturers from limiting the height drones can fly? I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it seems quite necessary.
If I recall correctly, GPS receivers for non-military use are specifically designed not to operate over 60,000 feet altitude or 1,000 knots velocity. So it's not un-precedented.
Is there anything preventing manufacturers from limiting the height drones can fly? I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it seems quite necessary.
Several commercial models are already capped at 120m or so. With DIY ones though it's not so easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine hitting the engine is probably the safest thing that could happen. The engines are made of titanium alloys and designed to not fail catastrophically. The rest of the aircraft is made of soft materials by comparison.
A jet engine that ingests any metal object the size of a drone motor will take serious damage. The engine may continue to run, but there will be blade damage. Vibration sensors indicate how bad the problem is. Most likely, there will be an engine shutdown and a precautionary landing. The plane goes out of service, the engine is replaced, and the damaged engine goes in for a major overhaul. The aircraft operator will…
Not particularly relevant.
J52 engines weren't tested or certificated for bird-strike tolerance or turbine-blade containment.
The later civil derivative, the JT8D, shared a core but was a new design outside the hot-section and had to meet all the FAA-mandated requirements.
This might be a naive question, but what would happen if a hobby drone collided with a jet? As long as it doesn't hit the engines, wouldn't the damage be negligible?
Remember the speed differentials involved here. Landing speed for large passenger jets is fast . Picture a 5-pound drone hitting a stationary plane at 250 miles per hour and ask if the damage would be "negligible".
"Investigators into the Columbia accident have estimated that the dislodged foam was about 19 by 11.5 by 5.5 inches (48 by 29 by 14 cm), weighed about 26.7 ounces, or 1.7 lb (0.75 kg) and impacted the Shuttle at nearly 530 mph (850 km/h). For the sake of a rough comparison, this block of foam would be about the same size and weight as a large loaf of bread."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember the speed differentials involved here. Landing speed for large passenger jets is fast . Picture a 5-pound drone hitting a stationary plane at 250 miles per hour and ask if the damage would be "negligible".
Can't help of thinking of the foam strike causing the Columbia space shuttle disaster "Investigators into the Columbia accident have estimated that the dislodged foam was about 19 by 11.5 by 5.5 inches (48 by 29 by 14 cm), weighed about 26.7 ounces, or 1.7 lb (0.75 kg) and impacted the Shuttle at nearly 530 mph (850 km/h). For the sake of a rough comparison, this block of foam would be about the same size and weight…