Destroying hobbyist drones

[sim667]

black widow catapult and a handfull of lead shot (or stones if you are tight)

you get a spread out shot like from a shotgun so are more likely to hit the thing even if your aim is poor.


on a side note, i give it 4 months before we are seeing sex tapes from captured drone footage

Ive already seen a smut vid filmed on a drone, but it was set up..... and really quite boring.

 

[sim667]

This might work, (may be slightly illegal). Probably good up to 100 feet or so. Good spread of shots.

Its not illegeal to own a paintball gun though

 

[spitfire]

I know, I have a couple. It is illegal if you misuse it. As anything can be. Firing into the air would (generally) be considered misuse. Certainly frowned upon.

 

[DotCommunist]

I know, I have a couple. It is illegal if you misuse it. As anything can be. Firing into the air would (generally) be considered misuse. Certainly frowned upon.

if you hit one with a paint round it wouldn't destroy it in a glorious fireball of righteous vengeance, but I bet the paint would wreck the rotors/camera lens

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

What was trying to get at was could a drone, not a frozen turkey bring down(with no survivours obvs)or cripple(& with a few fatalities)a 777 or would an A330 be better in the same circumstances, also would a CFM or a Rolls engine be more drone resistant?

Maybe if it was a frozen turkey drone.

 

[spitfire]

if you hit one with a paint round it wouldn't destroy it in a glorious fireball of righteous vengeance, but I bet the paint would wreck the rotors/camera lens

At 300fps it would certainly result in some fairly catastrophic and spectacular damage. No fireballs though.

 

[scifisam]

I've never seen a drone. Am I missing out, somehow? Are drones only being used on the popular people?

How many planes have been downed by someone lobbing a frozen turkey at them?I'm quite strong and good at throwing, but I doubt I'd be able to hit a 777 taking off at 150mph.

This man needs words.

I assume it's because of the myth that frozen turkeys are used when testing plane engines' resistance to birds being sucked into their engines or onto their windows. I remember first hearing this as a kid and being told that birds sometimes freeze when they get to high altitudes, then thaw as they get lower down, revive, flap their wings and live. I was always a bit about that. Freezing is freezing; it kills you. "Being very cold" is not the same thing.

A frozen turkey would be a fairly large object to encounter when flying, and nothing like anything you'd encounter in real life bar a meteor hitting the Earth. Real dead birds were used but they'd have nothing like the impact of a frozen one, and fortunately birds don't actually have the ability to go to freezing point and back.

A drone would have similar effects to a frozen turkey if it were of a similar size though and those effects could be pretty devastating.

 

[DotCommunist]

drones are the new cupcakes.

 

[toggle]

How many planes have been downed by someone lobbing a frozen turkey at them?I'm quite strong and good at throwing, but I doubt I'd be able to hit a 777 taking off at 150mph.

This man needs words.

makes more sence when you know they throw dead turkeys into engines to test how they will respond to bird strikes. not forzen ones though

 

[EastEnder]

A frozen turkey would be a fairly large object to encounter when flying, and nothing like anything you'd encounter in real life bar a meteor hitting the Earth. Real dead birds were used but they'd have nothing like the impact of a frozen one, and fortunately birds don't actually have the ability to go to freezing point and back.

Counterintuitively, there's less difference between the impact of a frozen & non-frozen bird than one might think. If you're going to get smacked in the face by a dead bird, I'd definitely opt for the thawed out one. However, neither is likely to hit you at great speed. At 150mph, it's a question of mass & velocity, with rigidity playing a smaller role. A frozen bird weighs the same as when it's not frozen, so mass is a constant. So is velocity. So the energy on impact is the same, the only differentiating factor is rate of deceleration - to impart less damage, the object must be decelerated over a longer duration. Hitting something that's relatively rigid, such as a plane wing, at very high speed tends to mean the rate of deceleration is similar, irrespective of how hard or soft the impactor is. Anyone remember the lump of insulating foam that fell off the shuttles external fuel tank and punched a big hole in the wing? And that foam was compressible. Something that's mainly water - birds, mammals, etc - is relatively incompressible. It'll swell & burst of course, but at high enough speed there's not enough time for the constituent bits to fly apart harmlessly, so much of the impact energy goes into the target, with deleterious consequences.

 

[DotCommunist]

this Science knowledge means that we can take out drones armed with only a frozen kiev and a good catapult

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The easiest thing would probably be to use a high powered laser pointer.

 

[DotCommunist]

The easiest thing would probably be to use a high powered laser pointer.

in order that the drone is taken down by enraged cats? DIY civilian defence must utilise all animal friends in this struggle against cyberdyne

 

[FridgeMagnet]

in order that the drone is taken down by enraged cats? DIY civilian defence must utilise all animal friends in this struggle against cyberdyne

You could try also dropping cats via parachutes from a bigger drone above it, but a more effective mechanism might be knocking out the camera, without which it is pretty useless.

It might be fun sending hails of ball bearings flying through the air but chances of actually hitting the thing are pretty much zero, and even then chances knocking it out are slim unless you hit a rotor.

 

[krink]

a turkey flying yesterday (not frozen but still...)

 

[T & P]

I'm more worried about kids inside their own homes being spied on by drone wielding nonces which is the more likely scenario here

Oh noes! It's PedoDrone!

Actually, I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't run a full front page already warning us about paedoes arming themselves with drones and flying them into kids' bedrooms... They're missing a trick there.

 

[hot air baboon]

...need to source something along these lines...( ideally with tractor beam )

...do you actually own the airspace over your homestead...all the way up...?

got Heathrow-bound bastards flying through it all the time but have sneaking suspicion invoicing Cathay Pacific wouldn't be entirely successful ....

 

[Cid]

Oh noes! It's PedoDrone!

Actually, I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't run a full front page already warning us about paedoes arming themselves with drones and flying them into kids' bedrooms... They're missing a trick there.

Write them a strongly worded letter, it's been a while since crack squirrels, urban needs to get back on the media trolling game.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

yes. but readers in rural areas may wish to use shotguns.

 

[Pickman's model]

^ for the advanced hobbyist

 

[2hats]

Many of the safety concerns will be eliminated by micro UAVs but the privacy concerns will multiply as will the difficulty of downing such with conventional kinetic methods.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In the 60s when kids were kids, we shot down drones with catapults made from twisted together elastic bands & Y shaped bits of wood cut from trees with our penknives. Kids today cower indoors with their ipads at the mercy of drones.

Or, if you fancied yourself as a bit of a sharpshooter, you made a peg gun.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would agree with that. In the 60s kids armed themselves with catapults & killed nonces(called 'nasty men' in those days)that lurked on every street corner, we told them to stuff their sweets & puppies where the sun didn't shine.

Did they ever manage to get that chihuahua out of your arse?

 

[Wilson]

I'm waiting for the google maps cloud drones to be released.

 

[likesfish]

Many years ago did a light anti aircraft course where you fired machine guns at a radio control model which was apprantly scaled to be the same as a mig doing 500 knots.
Even with AA sights and 50 round bursts it was practically impossible to hit the sodding thing after a couple of hours somebody hit the engine which you werent suppoused to do end of course.

 

[DotCommunist]

It should be possible to steal a drone if they work like radio control model planes. Model planes had 6 allotted frequencies colour coded so when the club was flying together they could have 6 planes in the air at a time on different frequencies. It was not unknown for radio model planes often worth £100s to be stolen in flight by somebody with a boosted up variable frequency tranceiver. I guess with the growing popularity of drones, drone theft will become popular as well.

Reading this post- I recall a mate who was into his petrol powered remote control cars. Similar cross frequency issue. Crystals may have been involved?

either way it looks like ECM is going to be more effective than hoofing lead shot at it from a catapult. We live in interesting times

 

[J Ed]

 

[Orang Utan]

black widow catapult and a handfull of lead shot (or stones if you are tight)

you get a spread out shot like from a shotgun so are more likely to hit the thing even if your aim is poor.


on a side note, i give it 4 months before we are seeing sex tapes from captured drone footage

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-first-drone-shot-porn-is-beautiful-nsfw

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm sure you could get a decent deal on one of these right now ...

 

[dylanredefined]

I'm sure you could get a decent deal on one of these right now ...

I remember when that was so new the only photos NATO had of it was when it was covered with a tarpaulin
So that's what they used to teach recognition of it with .