hitting a drone is unlikely to cause significant damage unless it hit in just the right spot. Seeing and overreacting to a drone might cause some damage but there is probably one second of altitude change there if any - that collision was already quite likely from the intercept path being flown. I've not flown either of those aircraft (before my time) but looking underneath during a turn requires effort and may not have even been possible, especially if there was a lack of awareness to prompt the look.
I think Juan's youtube video explaining the airborne change of directive from what in the comments on that video appears to have been an under briefed, and sadly under questioned briefing, is by far the most likely explanation.
While the prop is, uh, properly a wing, and technically hitting something with it would interrupt the airflow, they're quite strong and would likely just destroy the object, slightly damaging the prop. If it did damage it beyond usability, it'd been way more obvious in the video and with the prop breaking off.
If you're talking about the aircraft stalling, then it's unlikely as we don't see that significant of a movement in the brief second of video. Under g-load (an "accelerated stall") the buffer between the onset of the stall and the stall itself is decreased, and as I said elsewhere that while I have no familiarity with the handling characteristics of that aircraft, there's simply doesn't look like enough time for a stall to develop between when the aircraft supposedly hit a drone and for-sure hit the other aircraft. And from what I could see, the movement doesn't at all look like a stall, and from the moment I saw the two aircraft in the video you can see the intercept occurring - that's likely harder for the unfamiliar to see being unfamiliar with the concept of two disparate turning circles crossing at a point in the future, differing because of bank angle (one or even both "circles - i.e. vectors - could even be straight lines) and because of differing speeds.
From the limited videos I've seen, one pilot could not, or simply did not, see the other aircraft, either because of the bank angle blocking the view or not realizing the aircraft was there and being focused elsewhere (such as the aircraft in from of them) and simply ran into the other aircraft. How they got into that position is the difficult investigation, and Juan's YouTube video pointed out that the sudden airborne airboss directive was to cross flight paths, when they didn't brief such and rather unlikely had ever practiced such, and may not have even realized such.
...otherwise those noise complaints are getting extreme.
The US has engaged in a series of unprovoked wars for decades, killing millions of innocent people and losing almost everyone.
Why would you want to participate in this sequence of genocides and war crimes?
Fighter jocks invented the humblebrag. (Source: My dad was one, plus my own service aboard a Navy aircraft carrier.)
Serious people would show the video at normal speed, then slowed done, and added timecode, as well as documenting their methods. They also wouldn't make assumptions about what was going on, eg 'tries to restart the engine'. These black blobs look to me like compression artifacts, from zooming a video from a phone camera that was compressed for storage and then compressed again when uploaded to social media.
Also, even if there was an object and the engine went out (which seems unlikely, most drones are pretty fragile and would be destroyed by a propellor), losing power doesn't mean losing all control of the plane. Manual flight control would still work to some extent. But I don't see last-minute efforts to avoid a collision that tragically failed; it looks like the fighter was pointed straight at the bomber.
I haven't checked to see if it originates on 4chan, but it wouldn't surprise me. No-standards amateur sleuthing is the norm there, occasionally they get something right but their hit rate is like 5% at best. That's not stereotyping, I've been a regular there since 2008.
-------------------
EDIT: fieryskiff11 33 minutes ago [dead] | parent | next [–]
>I've been a regular there since 2008 Your username makes sense now
Not sure why, it's a made-up word I came up with in the 1990s for myself and is not meant to convey any secondary meaning. 4chan allows persistent usernames but I've never bothered to create one.
https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-cras...
(Seriously, the first 54 seconds of the video linked in the parent comment was just talking about local weather and a video of some trees.)
EDIT: I think it was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg
Basically, it appears that the organizer/commander instructed the p-63f to take the 500ft path (distance from the crowd) and the b-17g to move to 1000ft distance while they were at the same altitude. Disorganization from the getgo led to the crash. If you see a general aviation crash and want to know what happened, check out what Dan has to say first.
Seriously though, it does feel like a classic fuck up where two planes intended to be at separate flight levels end up at the same level temporarily.
If so - I dont see how this shouldnt be tried criminally. Similar to how someone would be tried for driving a car through a pedestrian area and striking someone, even if they had not explicit intent to harm.
> Give way to and do not interfere with other aircraft.
> Fly at or below FAA-authorized altitudes in controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, and surface Class E designated for an airport) only with prior FAA authorization by using LAANC or DroneZone.
> Flying drones in restricted airspace is not allowed. Drone pilots should always check for airspace restrictions prior to flight on our B4UFLY app or the UAS Facility Maps webpage.
Beyond needing to abide by the file mile rule, this airspace would have had an active TFR.
The sad reality of this incident is that it was likely just a result of poor vertical separation, either due to badly planned flight paths or lack of preparation, more likely both.
We've all got our irrational fears, but whether you're flying in a jumbo jet or a single-prop bug-smasher this one is very irrational indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
Maybe if someone is deliberately flying near an airport and moves into the exact right position at the right time without first being spotted
But in practice, mainstream drones are GPS locked to not fly anywhere near airports and it's not really realistic to just accidentally get a drone too close to an airplane anywhere else. Also, the sky is a massive place and drones have limited flight time. I think the drone-airplane collision fears are greatly exaggerated outside of unique low-altitude specialty flying like airshows.
Hitting a drone is your worst nightmare while piloting small aircraft?
Or hitting a plane is your worst nightmare when flying a drone?
A small GA aircraft hitting a drone has a very high fatality chance, particularly in the stages of flight most likely to encounter amateur drone operators (ie. takeoff and landing).
You're way to more likely to be killed by a midair in the pattern at an uncontrolled field than anything drone related.
Although possible, war planes should not be as affected by strikes.
Why do you think it's a drone?
There is nothing special about a war plane that makes it less affected by strikes of any kind, be from birds or drones alike.
