Maybe I do have it backwards. I am not an RC hobbyist at all, but I was under the impression that quadcopters were popular because they were so much easier to fly and didn’t go out of control as easily as RC planes and (especially) helicopters. Is that wrong? I regard a quadcopter’s ability to maneuver as part of why they’re more versatile if you want to deliver an explosive to a target. They can ensure that the shaped charge is pointed in the approximate right direction when it gets to where it’s going. A speedy RC plane would be more likely to miss because it’s speedy. No?
The African one doesn’t migrate.
3 Likes
Multirotors became popular because manufacturers like DJI commoditized the assisted-flight technology that already existed e.g. in projects like ArduPilot. But the technology itself was first developed for fixed-wing planes, and is still just as applicable. The main advantage of a multirotor for a novice pilot is that it can hover, and therefore you can fly it as slowly as you want (in assisted mode) without crashing. With a plane, it has to be moving above its stall speed or it falls out of the air, which increases the likelihood that the novice will crash, even with assistance. A GPS-enabled flight controller is going to be able to hit a target with as much precision as the GPS system is capable of providing, regardless of if it’s flying a multirotor or a fixed-wing. It’s not like we’re talking about zig-zagging through a field of obstacles here. It’s just fly in a straight line from point A to point B at altitude, and then land/crash at point C. This is bread-and-butter for any flight controller with waypoint capabilities. Landing a fixed-wing autonomously, to be fair, is a bit dodgy, but if you don’t care about the plane surviving the landing, that’s moot.
Not necessarily the case.
2 Likes
Mortar rounds would be a better bet. You can have more distance and you don’t need a direct line of sight.
The IRA used homemade mortars, sometimes mounted in the back of a transit van. Based on wikipedia, I see the range was only a few hundred yards, though.
1 Like
Update! This makes a bit more sense now:
I was thinking that the multirotor’s ability to stop, hover, and orient itself makes it more of a threat than a plane. This isn’t a matter of striking the building with an military artillery round, but an IED that needs more precision. For example, to damage a fortified building, a shaped charge has to be pointing the right way. I would think a multirotor has a better chance of ensuring the charge goes off in the right direction and at the right height. As another example, an explosive device designed to throw out shrapnel in a horizontal plane is much more effective if it goes off at waist height than on the ground. I imagine the odds of success would be greater doing that with a multirotor that has the time to determine its altitude versus a plane diving toward the ground that might be moving too fast. I can think of other instances, but maybe I’m speculating too much.
White house mosquito net?
1 Like
That’s interesting. If I had the money and time, I would get a few quads and see how I did against them with a shotgun and nightvision. It would destroy them, but it sure would be fun.
If your goal is to deliver an explosive in a specific location like that, I could see the multirotor having an advantage. If was thinking more along the lines of something like an RC-controlled mortar round.
If your goal is to deliver an explosive in a specific location like that, I could see the multirotor having an advantage. If was thinking more along the lines of something like an RC mortar round.
Drone hunting: A new sport for the wealthy
1 Like
Hunting the Wealthy With Drones: A New Sport
4 Likes
A not-so-new sport, actually.
…the soundtrack is making me tempted to fly overseas for a trip…
…note the one at 3:44, she purrrrrrrrrs!
Fun stuff. Less drone hunting and more drone - holy crap did you see that?!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
