A New Method for Collecting Tornado-Related Data

[Mike Benefield]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this, but I'll give it a try. I'm into avionics and aerodynamics especially when it comes to model aircraft. I'm going to purchase a kit for a radio-controlled jet that I will use in an attempt to obtain tornado data. The jet has a top speed of up to 220 mph. It has enough thrust that it can fly straight up. I'm not sure how well the jet will perform in rough conditions. I don't even know if it's possible with the rapidly changing tailwinds, headwinds, downdrafts, and vertical ascent in and around the periphery of a tornado. If I can find a tornado, I will orbit it (not too close!) and collect data, dropping probes at key locations, particularly in the inflow. It will have an on-board barometer, GPS, ELT, a pan-tilt camera with a full 360 degree view, controls for retractable landing gear, flaps, throttle, ailerons, rudder, and elevator. I will use a 14-channel radio with a built-in video screen. The camera will be used for flying as if you were in the plane (also known as FPV - First Person View). A high-gain directional antenna will substanially increase the range by up to five miles. I'm fully aware that this is a monumental undertaking, and it will be very expensive.

So, what do you think? I need input from members. Please share your ideas.

This F-16 is the one I want. It's highly maneuverable with plenty of space inside for electronics. It is 10 feet long with a 6.5 foot wingspan.

 

[NealRasmussen]

You realize you're going to freak the Storm Gnats out? (News choppers.)

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

From purely a photographic chaser's point of view...I hate having planes in my photos...so considert that while you're buzzing the tower and how many other people are trying to shoot pure video of the same tornado. If everybody did this and every storm was surrounded by remotes and drones, I'd quit chasing.

 

[Mike Benefield]

From purely a photographic chaser's point of view...I hate having planes in my photos...so considert that while you're buzzing the tower and how many other people are trying to shoot pure video of the same tornado. If everybody did this and every storm was surrounded by remotes and drones, I'd quit chasing.

It's not like I'll be out there every time a chase is underway. I'll probably do it maybe a dozen times a year. And what are the chances of my plane appearing in one of your photos? I understand your desire to shoot great photos, but there are other people with different interests. I say we work together.

 

[Todd Lemery]

One thing to think about. I would assume you would need a fairly large stretch of open road to take off. That might be a little hard to come by with a twister on the ground. Maybe a top end drone instead?

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

Depends how much lift and speed is needed to get the plane and keep it airborne.
I personally like the idea. The only issue I foresee is the faa like mentioned with the news choppers

 

[Mike Benefield]

One thing to think about. I would assume you would need a fairly large stretch of open road to take off. That might be a little hard to come by with a twister on the ground. Maybe a top end drone instead?

Good point. It takes 150 feet of runway to take off (under ideal circumstances). The radio/video communications system has a range of up to five miles, so that expanded radius should increase the chances of finding a suitable landing strip. Thanks for the feedback. I need all I can get!

 

[ngjere]

Well, I certainly admire your ambitions and wish you all the best but, what storm attributes do you feel you will gain with your plan that others haven't already succeeded in acquiring? As others have stated, you're certainly not the first to fly a sensored model aircraft near and/or into the core of a meso or tornado.

I'm not suggesting your plan doesn't have merit, but you may want to do a "gut check" on the cost/benefit of it.

Good Luck!

 

[Mike Benefield]

Depends how much lift and speed is needed to get the plane and keep it airborne.
I personally like the idea. The only issue I foresee is the faa like mentioned with the news choppers

I don't know what the stall speed is. I definitely need to know that. About the FAA, a few years ago an administrative judge for the NTSB ruled that radio-controlled aircraft are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA. However, soon thereafter, some NTSB committee brought the matter up again and reversed the decision on the grounds that commercial use of R/C aircraft is prohibited. Therefore, the private, non-commercial use of R/C aircraft is NOT regulated by the FAA or the NTSB. But, I'm sure we haven't heard the end of it.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Well, I certainly admire your ambitions and wish you all the best but, what storm attributes do you feel you will gain with your plan that others haven't already succeeded in acquiring? As others have stated, you're certainly not the first to fly a sensored model aircraft near and/or into the core of a meso or tornado.

I'm not suggesting your plan doesn't have merit, but you may want to do a "gut check" on the cost/benefit of it.

Good Luck!

I see your point. It certainly will get expensive. I estimate it will cost me around $40,000. On the other hand, I have a few ideas I haven't mentioned yet that could give scientists much higher resolution data, as well as other, innovative uses of existing data and systems.

 

[Todd Rector]

It would be interesting to see how it performs in the type of weather it is likely to encounter (I doubt hail of any size would be survivable). It will certainly challenge your flying skills landing with a 30kt surface inflow crosswind. I can see some chasers getting irritated if you attempt to stop traffic so you can land - even if it's just for a minute or two - so there's always *that* aspect. I like the idea of using it to drop probes into inflow - it would probably be much more effective than using a pneumatic cannon or home-made rocket strategy.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

It's not like I'll be out there every time a chase is underway. I'll probably do it maybe a dozen times a year. And what are the chances of my plane appearing in one of your photos? I understand your desire to shoot great photos, but there are other people with different interests. I say we work together.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have no problem with your concept. And if I knew you were there, I'd actually want to shoot (photograph) your not-so-small model Jet because that's just cool.

A few times a year, no problemo...but if you were at all the big events, I think people might get tired of it. Realistically...doubt there would be a problem.

Hope you're a good pilot...and good luck with this venture.

But as I said...once everyone starts flying drones and crap all around storms, it'll get old to those who just want to watch and take photos/video.

 

[Mike Benefield]

It would be interesting to see how it performs in the type of weather it is likely to encounter (I doubt hail of any size would be survivable). It will certainly challenge your flying skills landing with a 30kt surface inflow crosswind. I can see some chasers getting irritated if you attempt to stop traffic so you can land - even if it's just for a minute or two - so there's always *that* aspect. I like the idea of using it to drop probes into inflow - it would probably be much more effective than using a pneumatic cannon or home-made rocket strategy.

The extreme weather is my biggest concern. The wings are made from carbon-fiber and have several layers of laminate for strength. Still, hail is a big concern, so my strategy is to try to avoid it altogether. It could probably survive a few minutes of dime-size hail, but anything bigger would be a problem. I can easily land in a grass field, so that's not a problem. I never liked the idea of inserting probes by rocket. I'm into model rockets also and I'm well aware of the difficulty of getting them to go where you want them to go. They have a strong tendency to "weathercock", that is, turn into the wind. That is caused by a misplaced center of pressure and/or excessively large fins. A jet can drop the probes exactly where you want them. And with a huge payload section, a large number of probes can be carried.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

How level is the grass field though? Chances are it may look pretty level, but filled with a lot of dips and bumps that can damage the landing gears

 

[Mike Benefield]

How level is the grass field though? Chances are it may look pretty level, but filled with a lot of dips and bumps that can damage the landing gears

That's something that will require some reconnoitering. I could send out a team member or two to check out the LZ to see if it's suitable. If push comes to shove I can take my chances, since the landing gear is extremely well-built and comes equipped with shock absorbers. They are scale models of the original F-16 landing gear. The landing gear alone costs $2,500.00.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I think you'd get more success by just flying the damn thing straight into a tornado at near top speed, deploying your instruments just before entering the tornado. Put a transmitter of some sort on the instruments to transmit data to some nearby data logger and just hope to get some decent information before everything is destroyed.

There was research back in the 60s or 70s with people trying to shoot instrumented rockets from planes into tornadoes. I don't recall there being much success because it was too hard to successfully aim the rocket.

 

[amytierney]

I am neither a meteorologist, nor am I well educated in avionics, however one question that runs through my head is: IF a large aircraft can't fly anywhere near a tornado, how would a much smaller one be able to do it and survive?

Also, I don't know how the clouds work above the actual storm but we do have planes that can fly that high, so.....why can't they drop probes into the storm from above? Or has that already been tried?

 

[Drew Terril]

My thoughts on the latter question Amy, when a storm gets up around 50,000 ft or above (like many large supercells), very very few commercially available (non military) aircraft can cruise higher than that altitude. Even most of our military aircraft cruise between 40 and 50,000 ft. So the pool of aircraft that could cruise above that point at subsonic speeds (dropping something as small as a probe at supersonic speeds would drastically change the ballistics) is very small.

 

[Mike Benefield]

I am neither a meteorologist, nor am I well educated in avionics, however one question that runs through my head is: IF a large aircraft can't fly anywhere near a tornado, how would a much smaller one be able to do it and survive?

Also, I don't know how the clouds work above the actual storm but we do have planes that can fly that high, so.....why can't they drop probes into the storm from above? Or has that already been tried?

Good question, Amy. I'll answer the second question first. There are several reasons that wouldn't be possible. First, tornadoes are moving, and hitting a moving target from 10 miles up is a million to one shot. Second, there is a specific area for probe deployment, the inflow/updraft region of the thunderstorm. There is a narrow window of opportunity to deploy probes in that particular region.

In reference to your first question, the smaller aircraft can orbit the fringes of the mesocyclone/tornado until an opportunity presents itself to fly in closer to the target zone and drop probes. This project is in the very early stages and there are many, many questions that have to be answered. Thanks for the input and feel free to ask any question at any time.

 

[Mike Benefield]

My thoughts on the latter question Amy, when a storm gets up around 50,000 ft or above (like many large supercells), very very few commercially available (non military) aircraft can cruise higher than that altitude. Even most of our military aircraft cruise between 40 and 50,000 ft. So the pool of aircraft that could cruise above that point at subsonic speeds (dropping something as small as a probe at supersonic speeds would drastically change the ballistics) is very small.

Excellent answer.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Please keep the questions and feedback coming. You are definitely helping.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Here is a list of questions I have for those who are qualified:

1. As of now, the only data I am planning on collecting is from probes carried aloft in a tornado, with the goal of obtaining a high-resolution digital diagram of air flow with the tornado. What other data would be useful?

2. Who has information on building probes? I'm looking for a probe operating in the 900 mhz range, with an RF power output of at least 3W.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Some of the advanced members on this site can help me with this, too: An analysis of the wind fields in and around a tornado. (Direction of winds toward a tornado, winds inside the circulation, updrafts, etc.) This will help me get a better understanding of the flying conditions. I understand some things about wind fields, but I'm certainly not an expert. You're help will be appreciated.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Construction of the probes is underway. It appears that the final size will be significantly smaller than anticipated. I'm dropping the under-wing fuel tanks to install two probe deployment units (PDUs) (The fuel tanks were just for show, anyway). The probes will be arranged around a semi-circular bus. When one is deployed, the next is immediately moved into position for sequential deployment. I'm not sure how many probes I can fit into a PDU. I'd like to have 50 probes per PDU.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

Yeah, got to say I am not too keen on this idea. I see a whole slew of issues:

1. The survival of a plane this close to a tornado, especially on the flight plan you have listed, is likely not possible. You are talking about orbiting the tornado at a close range, even if you do survive the strong and constantly shifting winds I doubt you would make it through the contents of the RFD. If your supercell is strong enough to produced a sustained tornado that you are able to orbit, there is a pretty good chance that much larger than dime sized hail in the RFD and FFD which you will have to transect, especially as the tornado occludes.
2. The sinking air of a robust RFD will likely test your skills of stall prevention each orbit as it will be like flying into a microburst again and again.
3. The way you are outfitting this aircraft, and will be using it, pushes it past the definition of a hobby R/C plane and into UAV territory, expect the FAA to fight you on this point. The sticking point the FAA will come at you with is the face that you have altered the purpose and mission of the aircraft by giving it a deliverable payload with a defined task.
4. You are going to also find that the news helis get closer than you think. You also have upcoming projects, such as the repurposed A10, that will limit the diameter you can orbit a tornado. Your small plane will be moving extremely fast and there will be little room for error if you happen to find another aircraft stray into your path with little warning.
5. This is an insane amount of money to throw into a project that has a high chance for catastrophic failure.
6. How will you be able to tell the altitude of your probes' measurements as it. is carried by the tornado (if it even makes it into it)?
7. How can you assure the quality of the data being gathered is of a high enough quality to be of use to researchers?
8. What do you expect to be able to gather that has not already been collected? From my understanding it is not the upper levels of a tornado that is a mystery but rather it is the lowest levels. Ground based mobile radars are able to see remarkable detail in the midlevels and up of a tornado. The issue is what is happening at the lowest levels of a tornado, why not focus your efforts there?
   
9. What is your background? Are you a meteorologist? Do you know what data is actually needed and being sought after by researchers? Do you have a lot of experience chasing tornadoes, and especially the longer lived ones?
10. How do you plan on controlling the aircraft while keeping pace with the storm. You will not be able to stay in one place very long given the short range of the receiver.
11. Having to use paved roads, even if briefly, to land and take off will further exacerbate the deteriorating relationship chasers have with LEOs who feel that we are a traffic hazard and are making it harder for them to operate their vehicles on the road. If you think that Kansas sheriff was mad before, imagine how he would have reacted to a chaser actually obstructing the road, and doing so to land or take off a model war bird no less.

I like your passion but I feel its misguided.