Mystery Collision with Oklahoma City Thunder's Airplane

originally posted by: F4guy

[...] I think a drone, or at least the battery powering a drone would have penetrated the composite dome. A 7.4v, 2500mah LiPo battery pack is not light, or soft.

To boot, the potential for catastrophe caused by a damaged LiPo battery-pack smashing through the radome changes the game considerably;

LiPo (Lithium Polymer) Battery Fire Through Mechanical Damage



...Scary thought really,

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity
Drones cannot fly at 30000 ft. Even if the military could and do operate such drones, they would hardly fly them in commercial air space!
The trouble with some of you is that you are so intent on finding conventional explanations in order to avoid the UFO possibility that your common sense and plausibilty fly out of the window in your desperation.

a reply to: micpsi

The trouble with some of you is that you are so intent in finding a UFO explanation for everything that you ignore the fact that this is identical in every way to other confirmed bird strikes.

Again, we don't know that it occurred at 30,000 feet. The article can claim that all it wants to, but the person writing it wasn't in the cockpit when it happened. The only people that know when it happened, and what altitude it was at are the cockpit crew. Until they say something none of us know what altitude it was really at.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Rationally said

What would the procedure be for interviewing the crew and just say for example, this was something unexplained, is it correct to say that the crew wouldn't be allowed to say anything publicly?

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity
Drones cannot fly at 30000 ft. Even if the military could and do operate such drones, they would hardly fly them in commercial air space!

I didn't dispute that. I was merely pointing out the potential fire hazard as a result of an aircraft eating a damaged LiPo pack.

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity
The trouble with some of you is that you are so intent on finding conventional explanations in order to avoid the UFO possibility that your common sense and plausibilty fly out of the window in your desperation.

I don't deny this either, to an extent - I'll gladly spend countless hours trying to debunk UFO videos.

Why?

Because the more I can debunk, the better my chances of finding something genuinely unexplainable; these are the Easter Eggs that we seek. It's all about critical thinking and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

For the record, I'm not only a 'believer', I'm an eyewitness to ariel phenomenon that I simply can't explain.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The crew isn't allowed to comment until after their interviews with the FAA. That includes follow up interviews as necessary. Once their part in the investigation is done they can talk, as long as it's not classified by a higher organisation.

a reply to: micpsi

Well a Drone could go to 30thousand feet.

You're limited by your battery pack and the durability of the electronics onboard.

If you can make your Electronics and modified battery pack cold resistant you should not have much of a problem with getting it to that height (depending on the drone), however a goal of 12thousand feet (standard/mid range drone) would be a easier feat - set the GPS parameters, altitude, height etc and you're good to go.

a reply to: Zaphod58

one of those images do look similar, however its has an very strange chaotic shape in line with the complex structure of a bird while the chinese one and the new one both have an uniform crater shape like if an small sphere collided with the plane
so yeah i dont know the bird is the most plausible explanation but still there is something that doesnt make sense

a reply to: Zaphod58

also they are lucky they collided with an small sphere of the foo fighter type otherwise it would be the UFO that would suffer hull damage
(dont take this comment way too seriously)

a reply to: Cauliflower

wat

a reply to: humanoidlord

All bird strikes. No blood, no shape of a bird, nothing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ok you got me its an bird then
people makes mistake ok?
i am investigator not an freaking seer

Off the Space Station, off the 757 nothing but net.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The crew isn't allowed to comment until after their interviews with the FAA. That includes follow up interviews as necessary. Once their part in the investigation is done they can talk, as long as it's not classified by a higher organisation.

A bird strike, even on a Part 121 operation, is not a mandatorily reportable accident, which would trigger an NTSB, not FAA investigation. And even if the NTSB gets involved, there is no regulatory "gag order" The airlines, though, have all sorts of rules about what employees can say, and to whom. At my airline, all statements must come from, or at least be approved by, the Director of Communications, i.e., the PR honcho.
BTW, the highest confirmed bird strike was a griffen vulture at 37,000 feet off the coast of Africa in 1973.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: micpsi

Well a Drone could go to 30thousand feet.

You're limited by your battery pack and the durability of the electronics onboard.

If you can make your Electronics and modified battery pack cold resistant you should not have much of a problem with getting it to that height (depending on the drone), however a goal of 12thousand feet (standard/mid range drone) would be a easier feat - set the GPS parameters, altitude, height etc and you're good to go.

The density of the air at that altitude is so low that the lessened resistance would cause the electric motors to short out long before it got to 30,000 feet. That is why the magnetos (ignition spark source) on high altitude piston aircraft must be pressurized, usually by using tubo- or super charging waste gate bleed air. One other result of the low air densuty is with a regular drone rotor blade, there just isn't enough mass in the area of the rotor to push down to make the drone go up.

a reply to: F4guy

No it isn't, but in cases like this, that I've seen, the FAA at least will get involved. There may not be an official gag order, but the airlines that I dealt with wouldn't let the crews talk to anyone after any kind of incident like this, and wouldn't make any kind of statement until they got the ok from higher up, be it FAA, or their upper corporate.

a reply to: F4guy

Did you not read my post?

It mentioned something about making modifications to the drone (you know, you quoted the whole thing), I also mentioned that 12thousand feet is an easy feat, I mentioned that because drones have already been tested at that altitude.

30thousand feet? I said "could" on that one, I would not be able to tell you what to do on a standard drone to do that, that's why I mentioned 12thousand instead.

There is a massive difference in an electric drive motor and a fuel/pistol driven engine - MASSIVE difference.

Check out Helios.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

How about you describe in detail the modifications that were made to the drone? We might be able to make some money if you are right.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: F4guy


There is a massive difference in an electric drive motor and a fuel/pistol driven engine - MASSIVE difference.

Check out Helios.

But there is almost no difference between an electric motor and an electric ignition magneto. They both rely on Paschen's law which states that V = 3000 x P x D + 1350. You will notice the variable "P", That is ambient air pressure. If pressure decreases, the voltage necessary to produce an air gap spark decreases, and at 30,000 feet, ambient pressure is only about 30% of standard sea level pressure. So magnetos misfire at high altitude and given the tiny air gap in drone motor windings, they would short out. Given the huge weight of putting a quadcopters motors in pressure vessels and adding some sort of pressure pump system, such a weighty drone wouldn't get off the ground, much less have a service cieling of 30,000 feet. I've flown a lot of airplanes at 30,000, and 40,000, and 50,000 feet, and you wouldn't believe the strange things that happen in an environment of 250 millibars air pressure and -60F temperatures. Batteries can quit working, fuel turns into a consistency of jello (which doesn't really atomize very well), and your lungs can pressurize the cockpit instead of the other way around.

a reply to: F4guy

No one ever reads anymore.

I said COULD, I did not say CAN, I did not say all drones, I did not say any thing of the type.

There are Solar based electric planes that go over 40thousand feet, it is why I mentioned it COULD be possible to modify CERTAIN drones to be able to reach that altitude.

I also mentioned that you CAN do it to 12thousand feet and that is an easier feat to do, as it already gets done.

Again there is a MASSIVE difference in an Electric motor and an fuel/piston Engine, you know the whole thing that it requires NO OXYGEN intake and a couple of other little things that a piston engine does, it is not all to do with your electric magentos.

Gah, thanks for the lessons in pressure, I was not aware that different altitudes produce different pressures and can ruin your day, not at all (sarcasm), it's almost like you think I don't make sure to research or know something before I type something up, and if I'm a little unsure I make sure first before I do.