A New Method for Collecting Tornado-Related Data

[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...

 

[Bart_Comstock]

Our nation's airspace is one of the busiest and yet safest for a reason. They are heavily focused on inspections already and most of the major incidents that have happened involving comercial air liners in the last few years have been the result of plans that are from overseas that the FAA does not have much control over when out of the US.

Regardless of your feelings about the FAA it doesn't change the fact that at this moment it is illegal to use the aircraft as you have described and thus the data cannot be used in any real research. You need to get the proper permits first.

Small hail and rain may not damage the airframe but what about causing damage to the jet engine? The blades of the jet in the model are not as strong as the ones in a real airliner.

5 miles seams like a lot of range but not when you consider the forward speed of most tornadoes is around 30kts and to stay ahead of the tornado for a meaningful amount of time with then plane, and not drove along side the storm at the same time, will be pretty hard if not impossoble.

It sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse here in regards to tackling such a project with out first amassing a proper amount of experience chasing in the areas you will deploy in and on the kind of storms you wish to tackle.

I think you are underestimating how much clear air there is infront of a tornado in the BEWR and how close your plane will have to get to have the tornado ingest the probes while they are in flight.

Using barometric pressure as an altimeter in a tight pressure falls gradient like a tornado is going to give you many false levels if the probe actually makes it into the tornado.

Getting a non fenced off grass field large enough to retrieve and deploy your plane is not as easy as you think. You will also find that more often than not that ground will be muddy, spongy, and wet from the forward flank of the storm having already passed over it.

I also understand that aircraft can and do take off from unpaved surfaces but the plane you have selected, a model F16, will likely require a paved runway due to the design of the landing gear.

No offense, but simply having seen a tornado as a kid and owning a consumer weather station doesn't make you a qualified expert on the subject or give the skills needed to complete your task, though I see you say you will recruit help but this likely will not come for free.

Tornadoes in the deep south, and chasing in that region is fairly different from the plains. Often the storms that produce tornadoes in the deep south are smaller, faster, and have less large hail. You will need a few years of chasing the big monster supercell of the plains if you really want to learn the feasibility of your project.

I still don't see this project as a good idea.

 

[Mike Benefield]

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...

Hey, I just thought of a use for the re-purposed A-10. They could use their 30mm cannon to shoot down civilian drones!

 

[Mike Benefield]

Our nation's airspace is one of the busiest and yet safest for a reason. They are heavily focused on inspections already and most of the major incidents that have happened involving comercial air liners in the last few years have been the result of plans that are from overseas that the FAA does not have much control over when out of the US.

Regardless of your feelings about the FAA it doesn't change the fact that at this moment it is illegal to use the aircraft as you have described and thus the data cannot be used in any real research. You need to get the proper permits first.

Small hail and rain may not damage the airframe but what about causing damage to the jet engine? The blades of the jet in the model are not as strong as the ones in a real airliner.

5 miles seams like a lot of range but not when you consider the forward speed of most tornadoes is around 30kts and to stay ahead of the tornado for a meaningful amount of time with then plane, and not drove along side the storm at the same time, will be pretty hard if not impossoble.

It sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse here in regards to tackling such a project with out first amassing a proper amount of experience chasing in the areas you will deploy in and on the kind of storms you wish to tackle.

I think you are underestimating how much clear air there is infront of a tornado in the BEWR and how close your plane will have to get to have the tornado ingest the probes while they are in flight.

Using barometric pressure as an altimeter in a tight pressure falls gradient like a tornado is going to give you many false levels if the probe actually makes it into the tornado.

Getting a non fenced off grass field large enough to retrieve and deploy your plane is not as easy as you think. You will also find that more often than not that ground will be muddy, spongy, and wet from the forward flank of the storm having already passed over it.

I also understand that aircraft can and do take off from unpaved surfaces but the plane you have selected, a model F16, will likely require a paved runway due to the design of the landing gear.

No offense, but simply having seen a tornado as a kid and owning a consumer weather station doesn't make you a qualified expert on the subject or give the skills needed to complete your task, though I see you say you will recruit help but this likely will not come for free.

Tornadoes in the deep south, and chasing in that region is fairly different from the plains. Often the storms that produce tornadoes in the deep south are smaller, faster, and have less large hail. You will need a few years of chasing the big monster supercell of the plains if you really want to learn the feasibility of your project.

I still don't see this project as a good idea.

I will get the required permits first.

Now, addressing the jet engine. There is a simple solution to the problem of hail and other debris damaging the fan blades. A small grille, mounted to the front of the engine intake, will block most hail and debris of the size that would damage the fan blades. In any endeavor, there is always an element of risk.

I agree, 5 miles is a relatively short distance when tracking a moving object. Anything that slows the progress of the chase is a liability. Therefore, I've decided to increase the range to 18 miles for radio control, and 9 miles for video transmission. This will give plenty of time to make course adjustments due to unpredictable roads and other unforeseen obstacles. There are many challenges in a project of this magnitude, and the only way to succeed is to brainstorm, experiment, study, and make test runs.

I guess you realized that I'm not answering every question. But I will answer a few more.

True, the ground won't be in the best of conditions. If necessary, I will try larger tires. One thing is for sure, I don't expect to find an excellent airstrip waiting on me, but there will be a way to take-off and land. It might take little searching, but it can be done.

To assume that seeing a tornado as a kid and owning a cheap consumer weather station (as a kid, also) somehow limits my capacity to learn is absurd. I mentioned those things to show you I had an interest in the weather at an early age. At no time did I make a statement that I was an "expert" at anything. Skills are another thing. Anyone, with proper motivation and the willingness to learn, will develop the necessary skills. And, not knowing me at all, how can you say that I don't have the abilities to accomplish such a feat?

 

[Mike Benefield]

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..

I knew I should have added a chaff disperser and flares! LOL

 

[Mike Benefield]

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

"Storm Gnats". I love it!

 

[Mike Benefield]

I read a thread about windshield wipers a little while ago, and it got me thinking about how well ordinary wipers would work on my jet's canopy, At 220 mph the performance would probably be less than desirable, so I did a little research. The British car company McClaren has implemented a military-style ultrasonic wiper system for their aircraft that uses sound waves to remove rain, ice, and even bird-droppings from their windshields. All indications show that this system works well, after all, the military uses it.

This would be perfect for my jet, because any time moving parts are eliminated from a machine the reliability increases. You would think that the price for such a device would be exorbitant, but in fact, it costs less than the standard windshield wiper. Wind-tunnel testing will be conducted to determine the efficacy of the ultrasonic wind shield wiper system. If it looks good, its a go for the jet.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Probe Deployment Unit (PDU) is currently being designed and developed.

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..

Alex, my goal is to have the plane, support systems, and personnel ready by next April. In your opinion, do you think the FAA will loosen their restrictions enough to allow a data-gathering flight to be undertaken by that time? Also, do you have any experience in obtaining a permit to allow research flights, or is that even possible at this time?

If the FAA won't allow a research flight to gather data, do you think they would allow flights that do everything but gather data, the purpose of which would be to gain experience flying in that environment and videoing the storm?

 

[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.

Our nation's airspace is one of the busiest and yet safest for a reason. They are heavily focused on inspections already and most of the major incidents that have happened involving comercial air liners in the last few years have been the result of plans that are from overseas that the FAA does not have much control over when out of the US.

Regardless of your feelings about the FAA it doesn't change the fact that at this moment it is illegal to use the aircraft as you have described and thus the data cannot be used in any real research. You need to get the proper permits first.

Small hail and rain may not damage the airframe but what about causing damage to the jet engine? The blades of the jet in the model are not as strong as the ones in a real airliner.

5 miles seams like a lot of range but not when you consider the forward speed of most tornadoes is around 30kts and to stay ahead of the tornado for a meaningful amount of time with then plane, and not drove along side the storm at the same time, will be pretty hard if not impossoble.

It sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse here in regards to tackling such a project with out first amassing a proper amount of experience chasing in the areas you will deploy in and on the kind of storms you wish to tackle.

I think you are underestimating how much clear air there is infront of a tornado in the BEWR and how close your plane will have to get to have the tornado ingest the probes while they are in flight.

Using barometric pressure as an altimeter in a tight pressure falls gradient like a tornado is going to give you many false levels if the probe actually makes it into the tornado.

Getting a non fenced off grass field large enough to retrieve and deploy your plane is not as easy as you think. You will also find that more often than not that ground will be muddy, spongy, and wet from the forward flank of the storm having already passed over it.

I also understand that aircraft can and do take off from unpaved surfaces but the plane you have selected, a model F16, will likely require a paved runway due to the design of the landing gear.

No offense, but simply having seen a tornado as a kid and owning a consumer weather station doesn't make you a qualified expert on the subject or give the skills needed to complete your task, though I see you say you will recruit help but this likely will not come for free.

Tornadoes in the deep south, and chasing in that region is fairly different from the plains. Often the storms that produce tornadoes in the deep south are smaller, faster, and have less large hail. You will need a few years of chasing the big monster supercell of the plains if you really want to learn the feasibility of your project.

I still don't see this project as a good idea.

Bart, I appreciate your feedback. You have many valid points that I agree with. I know there's growing tension between law enforcement and chasers and I certainly don't want to make things worse. I will abide by FAA guidelines. When it comes to chasing, I am indeed a rookie. Every chaser was once a rookie. I admit this project I'm working on is quite challenging, but it's the challenge that makes it worthwhile.

 

[Greg Campbell]

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.

Have you tried mixing RC airplane gyro tech with rockets? It shouldn't be too hard to make a rocket maintain a given orientation. Of course, lateral drift would be another issue altogether.
Also, I think you're underestimating the debris threat to both plane and rocket once you get close to just about any tornado. Carbon fiber whoop-de-whoop or not, a terminal encounter with a big chunk of who-knows-what seems inevitable.

 

[Greg Campbell]

Also, I can't fathom why you'd want to risk such an expensive model. IMO, what you really want is something like a ruggedized Ugly Stik. (A multi-engine pusher configuration might be more tolerant of debris hits.)
Make if cheap, tough, and wildly overpowered, with plenty of control authority so the gyros have half a hope of keeping the thing in the air amidst the incredible turbulence the plane will encounter.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Also, I can't fathom why you'd want to risk such an expensive model. IMO, what you really want is something like a ruggedized Ugly Stik. (A multi-engine pusher configuration might be more tolerant of debris hits.)
Make if cheap, tough, and wildly overpowered, with plenty of control authority so the gyros have half a hope of keeping the thing in the air amidst the incredible turbulence the plane will encounter.

Yes, gyros are a good idea. I completely missed that one. And yes, debris is just as much a threat as the wildly unpredictable wind fields. I became too focused on other areas of concern that I missed the obvious.

The reason I want to use a high-performance jet is to get in and get out as quickly as possible. Speed and maneuverability are crucial to success. But you've got me looking at other options. My plan was to start with an inexpensive prop plane to get some experience flying in such a harsh environment, then when I'm comfortable with that I would fly the jet on an actual mission. It's obvious that I need to rethink my plans. Thanks for the feedback! This is a complex project and I need all the help I can get.

 

[Anders Petersson]

Hi Mike
We at Sparv Embedded develop small radiosondes that can also be used as dropsondes. See: http://windsond.com
We're already in contact with a university that wants to deploy them from a UAV for measuring tornadoes, similar to your probes. Maybe we can do something together. It would at least be interesting to hear what you have planned. Feel free to contact me.

 

[Steve Miller]

We at Sparv Embedded develop small radiosondes that can also be used as dropsondes. See: http://windsond.com
We're already in contact with a university that wants to deploy them from a UAV for measuring tornadoes, similar to your probes. Maybe we can do something together. It would at least be interesting to hear what you have planned. Feel free to contact me.

Wouldn't mind talking with you about small balloon-delivered radiosondes, @Anders Petersson. See this thread: https://stormtrack.org/threads/why-not-balloons.27800/#post-323696
Thanks!

 

[Mike Benefield]

Wouldn't mind talking with you about small balloon-delivered radiosondes, @Anders Petersson. See this thread: https://stormtrack.org/threads/why-not-balloons.27800/#post-323696
Thanks!

Sounds interesting. How would you get the balloons to enter the inflow area, so they could travel up into the tornado/mesocyclone? If my jet is used, the balloons would create a tremendous amount of drag. A slower, yet powerful enough, UAV might be a solution.

 

[Steve Miller]

Balloon right into the inflow would be the mode. Smaller balloon with a reasonable light payload and some balancing via gyros, etc would deliver cameras and a radiosonde into an area of rotation. How long that balloon would survive for the instruments to do any good is questionable but the images derived from such a flight opportunity would be amazing I'd imagine.

I've considered a UAV and actually have a DJI Phantom 2+ that could act as a sacrificial lamb since I've recently upgraded. With my luck though, the silly thing would fall out of the sky or become a projectile and hurt someone.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Balloon right into the inflow would be the mode. Smaller balloon with a reasonable light payload and some balancing via gyros, etc would deliver cameras and a radiosonde into an area of rotation. How long that balloon would survive for the instruments to do any good is questionable but the images derived from such a flight opportunity would be amazing I'd imagine.

I've considered a UAV and actually have a DJI Phantom 2+ that could act as a sacrificial lamb since I've recently upgraded. With my luck though, the silly thing would fall out of the sky or become a projectile and hurt someone.

Is your goal to take advantage of the updraft in the meso/tornado to gain altitude in order to measure the updraft wind speeds or other data? If you want to take measurements as the radiosonde drops, what type of data are you seeking to measure? In my project, I want to obtain measurements in the updraft at the lowest levels of the tornado. There have been many studies of at the mid- and upper levels of the storm. I want to see what's going on in the 0-2.5 km range. I really want to analyze a multiple vortex tornado. I've never considered taking measurements as the device drops through the storm, but I am intrigued by what data might be obtained by doing so.

 

[Mike Benefield]

If you have experience with probes that measure meteorological data, I sure could use your help. I'm designing a probe now and would appreciate any info on the subject. I have some knowledge of electronics and meteorology but by no means am I an expert.

 

[Mike Benefield]

Well, I have begun the process of attempting to obtain a special permit from the FAA to conduct research operations using UAVs. If obtained, the permit would be valid for a period of two years. There are numerous steps involved in getting a permit. I agree with most of their regulations, especially those regarding public safety, but some of their policies seem to be unnecessarily restrictive and heavy-handed. I've read most of their documentation, court rulings, and info regarding future attempts to revise their policies on UAVs for non-commercial research flights. It appears that it will take quite some time to get a permit, if one can be obtained at all. At least the process is underway. We shall see what happens...

 

[Anders Petersson]

If you want to construct it all yourself, I can give a tip to use SHT21 or SHT71 as an easy way to measure humidity and temperature.

 

[NealRasmussen]

As to many drones in the videos and photos? I'm sure PS will have a plugin or such to remove these, just as there's one to remove powerlines. Compared to the lines of cars parked barely off the shoulder, with car doors often open over the road, I think a few specs around a tornado would be moot.

I'd rather see drones in photos than the proverbial NSSL "strip of the horizon"...