Drone maker objects to UD institute’s research
It says test on effects of collision with winged aircraft unrealistic.
In a clash among researchers that’s generated national attention, a drone manufacturer has taken aim at the University of Dayton Research Institute for its recent research into the effects of a collision between an air cannon-launched quadcopter drone and an aircraft wing.
The manufacturer “respectfully demanded” that UDRI “withdraw” what it argued was impossibly unrealistic research, and UDRI amended its explanation of the research and said it is open to further testing.
UDRI in recent weeks released a video that shows a drone being launched into an aircraft wing. Following the collision, the wing shows dramatic destruction caused by the drone.
Brendan Schulman, a vice president of policy and legal affairs for D JI Technology Inc., said the scenario is “simply inconceivable” in anything like real life.
At altitudes where a small Mooney M20 commuter plane would likely encounter a Phantom drone, the plane would be flying less than half as fast as shown in a UDRI video, 200 mph, Schulman wrote in an open letter to UDRI that has been posted online.
Rather, in the altitudes where such a drone is likely to operate, a Mooney would be taking off or landing at speeds of 70 to 88 knots, or 81 to 101 mph, Schulman wrote.
“Your video and blog post have been promoted in media around the world, yet nowhere in any of your print or television appearances have you qualified the limited and unrealistic nature of your test,” he wrote.
CNBC and numerous drone blogs and news outlets covered the research findings and controversy.
It appears to have begun with a Sept. 13 blog and video post titled “Risk in the Sky.” UDRI said tests it has performed “show that bigger may not always be better in contests between manned aircraft and even small UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).”
In its post, UDRI writes of a “test designed to mimic a midair collision of a drone and a commercial transport aircraft.” The idea was to test damage resulting from a collision at a speed of 238 miles per hour, the post said.
“Researchers in UDRI’s Impact Physics group launched a 2.1-pound D JI Phantom 2 quadcopter at the wing of a Mooney M20 aircraft,” UDRI’s post said. “The drone did not shatter on impact, but tore open the leading edge of the wing as it bore into the structure, damaging its main spar.”
“While the quadcopter (drone) broke apart, its energy and mass hung together to create significant damage to the wing,” the post quoted Kevin Poormon, UDRI group leader for impact physics, as saying.
The post paraphrases Poormon as saying the test was intended to compare “a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft.”
D JI takes issue with the scenario UDRI presents. Schulman charges UDRI with creating a blog post that seems designed “to generate paid research work for UDRI at the expense of the reputation of drone technology broadly and D JI’s products specifically.”
“Nobody can imagine a scenario in which one of our drones would be going fullspeed in colliding straight into the wing of a small, fourseat aircraft that is going at its maximum possible velocity,” Adam Lisberg, a North American communications director for Shenzhen, China-based D JI Technology, said in a phone interview Monday.
D JI’s letter was dated Friday. On Monday afternoon, UDRI released a statement saying there are currently no FAA defined collision test parameters for drone strike testing.
“We plan to perform additional tests using varying drone weights and different structures as targets, and we would welcome the opportunity to partner with members of the manned and unmanned aviation communities in future testing,” UDRI said in its response to D JI.
In response to that, Lisberg said UDRI’s work still leaves a false impression of the risks drone flights create.
“What this video shows, is that if you take the wing of a small airplane and fire something at it at hundreds of miles an hour, you will damage it,” Lisberg said. “I could have told you that.”
Andrew Shepherd, executive director and chief scientist with Sinclair Community College’s Unmanned Aerial Systems program, is also quoted in UDRI’s blog post.
“This type of testing shows that we recognized the potential risks and are seeking to better understand them and positively influence policy and operations to mitigate possible dangers,” Shepherd said in the post. “Collaborating with UDRI’s leading experts and world-class testing facilities helps us fulfill our mission to not only advance technologies for unmanned aerial systems, but to make the skies safer for manned and unmanned vehicles alike.”