A New Method for Collecting Tornado-Related Data

[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.

 

[Alex Schueth]

I agree with everything Bart has said. I am currently participating in research using a Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to gather atmospheric data. Beyond all the problems of design, durability, flight pattern, and types of probes; I'd like to touch more upon the FAA guidelines.

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.

Bart is completely correct on this point. If the FAA finds out they, will lay the hammer down with cease and desist letters as well as threatening to shoot the plane down. As of now, until the FAA loosens their guidelines on UAV's (only a matter of time) you are unable to fly planes like this gathering scientific research without their authorization. They might not find out the first couple times, but the data you gather was gathered illegally and so it cannot be used for research at all. So if one of your main priorities is truly gathering data, I would think about that for a little bit. There is a lot of red tape to go through in order to gather data with this method that is usable, but currently that is the only way to do it.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, because I am equally as excited and passionate about gathering data in this regard, but we all have to play by the same rules..

 

[Bart_Comstock]

I agree with everything Bart has said. I am currently participating in research using a Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to gather atmospheric data. Beyond all the problems of design, durability, flight pattern, and types of probes; I'd like to touch more upon the FAA guidelines.

Bart is completely correct on this point. If the FAA finds out they, will lay the hammer down with cease and desist letters as well as threatening to shoot the plane down. As of now, until the FAA loosens their guidelines on UAV's (only a matter of time) you are unable to fly planes like this gathering scientific research without their authorization. They might not find out the first couple times, but the data you gather was gathered illegally and so it cannot be used for research at all. So if one of your main priorities is truly gathering data, I would think about that for a little bit. There is a lot of red tape to go through in order to gather data with this method that is usable, but currently that is the only way to do it.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, because I am equally as excited and passionate about gathering data in this regard, but we all have to play by the same rules..

The FAA is very strict about this matter. I know of several people who have revived letters from the FAA for their drone usage. The FAA wouldn't even let the VORTEX2 project fly their drones, causing that portion of the mission to be scuttled.

 

[amytierney]

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.

Thank you!! I always wondered why someone couldnt drop something in from above, but that is completely true and not probable. I do hope you can get it to work. I would love to see it happen.

 

[Mike Benefield]

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 transceiver.
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.

Thank you for your comprehensive reply! This is the type of feedback I've been looking for. When I started this project, I knew the odds were stacked against me, but the scientist in me was too intrigued not to give it a try. When I speak of orbiting a tornado, I don't mean orbiting in the usual sense of the word. I'm not going to attempt to literally orbit the storm, as a satellite would orbit the Earth. I intend to fly a circling pattern in front of the tornado, attempting to avoid the more turbulent features like the RFD, hail core, etc. If I do encounter small hail, the aircraft should be able to survive it, given that the airframe is a composed of multiple layers of carbon fiber, Kevlar, plywood and other robust materials. Larger hail will, of course, pose a greater threat to the integrity of the airframe. The greatest unknown is the effect of constantly changing air currents, such as going from a tailwind to a headwind and back again. Then there are the updrafts and downdrafts to contend with. My current plan is to fly a simple and far less expensive propeller-driven plane into a storm to see what happens. I am trying to get access to a wind tunnel to gain flying experience in similar conditions.

Now I will address the FAA's concerns:

FAA can’t regulate small R/C aircraft as “drones,” judge rules.
NTSB judge strikes down $10,000 fine against man for unlicensed "commercial use."


This court case was about whether a man can fly a drone for "commercial use", implying that flying for non-commercial use is indeed legal. There was yet another reversal in this case by the NTSB shortly after the above headline made the news. This time, it reinstated the $10,000 fine against the man whose action sparked the case in the first place. This thing is far from over. My personal viewpoint is that commercial use on a large scale, such as Domino's Pizza delivering pizzas, should be highly regulated if not banned altogether due to the large number of drones from many different companies filling the skies with drones, causing potential public safety issues.

In reply to your Question #6, "How will you be able to tell the altitude of your probes’ measurements as it is carried by the tornado." The probes, which are being designed even as we speak, have sensors. The barometric sensor will also give the altitude. The probe also contains a temperature/humidity sensor, GPS receiver (which will not only give the probe's position but also the wind speed and direction). It has a small transmitter, a processing unit, and a self-deploying parachute. All of this is contained in a sealed waterproof plastic case, measuring 3" x 1.75" x 0.50. A bright LED strobe light will be mounted on the unit to aid in location of the unit.

In response to Question #4, the chances of a re-purposed A-10 appearing in the same flight area at the same time are very remote. News choppers, on the other hand, are far more common and the problem must be addressed. I will research the cost and licensing requirements of two-way aircraft transceivers that will enable me to notify other aircraft of the presence of my jet in their area of operations.

Question #7: I will have to test my sensor probes and tweak them until the results are consistent and accurate.

Question #8: From the outset, my efforts have been focused on gathering data from the ground up to about 2.5 km.

Question #9: I first became interested in meteorology when I was nine years old. I got my first weather station when I was 10. Saw my first tornado when I was 12 years old. It was an F4 and it hit my house, tearing off the roof and collapsing a wall. Most of the neighborhood was destroyed. I don't have a degree in meteorology. I have a semester in electronics engineering. My occupation is computer programming, although I haven't done much programming in several years. I was self-taught and learned the rest on the job. I have 31 years experience in computer programming, networking, and hardware repair. I've been flying R/C aircraft since 1985.

Question #10: The range of the the R/C transceiver is at least 5 miles, and the video is at least 4 miles. It will be easy to keep within range of the tornado. Using the directional nature of the transceiver antenna, this task will be made even easier. If it becomes apparent that 5 miles isn't enough, I will upgrade to a longer-range transceiver/antenna combination which has a maximum range of 18 miles.

I have chased tornadoes on and off for about 15 years. I've chased 9 tornadoes, including an EF-4 and an EF-5. I chased the Hackleburg, AL EF-5 on April 27, 2011. Of the 132 miles it was on the ground, I chased it for about 25 miles. It was an incredible tornado, with a load roar, like a jet engine. It killed 72 people, making it the deadliest tornado on April 27th. So, I don't have a lot of experience chasing tornadoes, but the ones I did chase were pretty intense. The closest I came to the Hackleburg tornado was less than one mile.

Question #11: Airplanes don't require a road to take-off and land. I have had better take-offs and landings on grassy fields. So, there's the answer to that problem. All I need is a grassy field or even just a relatively smooth field (without grass) to take-off and land.

I don't intend to go it alone, anyway. I am looking for personnel who are experts in their fields. such as engineering, meteorology, electronics, etc. We will respect other chasers and public safety. If the FAA, in its infinite wisdom, thinks it should get involved in a hobby project such as ours, we are organizing as either a corporation or a LLC, and purchasing insurance to protect us from lawsuits, especially those of the frivolous types.


I have other uses for this aircraft (different sensor data, other functions, etc.) that I'm not releasing to the general public at this time. These are innovative features that should get the attention of research meteorologists. I'm working 12-14 hours a day on this project. A lot of documentation and illustrations is being compiled and from time-to-time some of it will be released.



Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Mike Benefield]

The FAA is very strict about this matter. I know of several people who have revived letters from the FAA for their drone usage. The FAA wouldn't even let the VORTEX2 project fly their drones, causing that portion of the mission to be scuttled.

I agree that it's just a matter of time before the political agency known as the FAA will back down on their extreme policing of the R/C industry. Maybe they could redirect their interests in the area of increased passenger jet safety, and stuff like that. I mean, shooting down a radio-controlled plane? Incredible...