Trained eagles to target drones
Discussion
halo34 said:
Actually my little racer can clock over 50 mph fairly easily, some out there are heading towards over 100 mph. Even a basic camera drone can trot along around 20-30 mph. The other thing to remember is that its directly human controlled!
So yes low level flying I can see the point of shotguns, but how are you going to deploy someone good enough to hit it whilst its moving towards intended target in time to stop the perceived threat. That's probably the point to any of the solutions like guns and hawks, how on earth can you contain an issue that might be anywhere within a certain radius at any time. A clay also has a defined trajectory (I have tried it a few times) and will all due respect you aren't necessarily dealing with something that will always do that. Utmost respect here to clay shooters as I was frankly rubbish and I agree in certain situations its going to be effective.
Maybe that's the point of the eagles, have eagle stations everywhere ready to go??
Current GPS fencing/boxing comes with firmware for likes of DJS and if you use aftermarket solution you can choose whether its enabled or just not have it at all. Loss of radio signal can be programmed to continue an automated flight as well, so that wont work (even on fairly low end flight controllers).
So for me I see the only practical solution is one that creates an exclusion zone - the practicalities I don't know.
DJI has the right idea in terms of boxing off areas such as airports, but that's only going to account for a very small percentage of flying beasties over time.
I argue for balance - its a great hobby and I respect any rules to the letter, but it does seem to be whipping up a level of paranoia now that makes me a bit more circumspect about it.
if you're going to go to that much trouble, much easier to have an automated shot-gun with targeting radar (and no, it would not start shooting at birds etc!)So yes low level flying I can see the point of shotguns, but how are you going to deploy someone good enough to hit it whilst its moving towards intended target in time to stop the perceived threat. That's probably the point to any of the solutions like guns and hawks, how on earth can you contain an issue that might be anywhere within a certain radius at any time. A clay also has a defined trajectory (I have tried it a few times) and will all due respect you aren't necessarily dealing with something that will always do that. Utmost respect here to clay shooters as I was frankly rubbish and I agree in certain situations its going to be effective.
Maybe that's the point of the eagles, have eagle stations everywhere ready to go??
Current GPS fencing/boxing comes with firmware for likes of DJS and if you use aftermarket solution you can choose whether its enabled or just not have it at all. Loss of radio signal can be programmed to continue an automated flight as well, so that wont work (even on fairly low end flight controllers).
So for me I see the only practical solution is one that creates an exclusion zone - the practicalities I don't know.
DJI has the right idea in terms of boxing off areas such as airports, but that's only going to account for a very small percentage of flying beasties over time.
I argue for balance - its a great hobby and I respect any rules to the letter, but it does seem to be whipping up a level of paranoia now that makes me a bit more circumspect about it.
the question really is just how much effort do you want to go to? for a prison, be really easy to cover the perimeter airspace with half a dozen 'guns' the question is how acceptable is that as a solution with our ever PC world? (look at the outcry over the stationing of SAM's on buildings to cover the olympics.)
Scuffers said:
if you're going to go to that much trouble, much easier to have an automated shot-gun with targeting radar (and no, it would not start shooting at birds etc!)
the question really is just how much effort do you want to go to? for a prison, be really easy to cover the perimeter airspace with half a dozen 'guns' the question is how acceptable is that as a solution with our ever PC world? (look at the outcry over the stationing of SAM's on buildings to cover the olympics.)
Is it wrong to think mini-gun instead the question really is just how much effort do you want to go to? for a prison, be really easy to cover the perimeter airspace with half a dozen 'guns' the question is how acceptable is that as a solution with our ever PC world? (look at the outcry over the stationing of SAM's on buildings to cover the olympics.)
My blades hit me once when spinning down, I ended up with a nice nurse and some glue not long later....
halo34 said:
Is it wrong to think mini-gun instead
My blades hit me once when spinning down, I ended up with a nice nurse and some glue not long later....
lol!My blades hit me once when spinning down, I ended up with a nice nurse and some glue not long later....
your thinking full 'goalkeeper' aren't you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sp0tEE8OPY
Scuffers said:
Tell you what, that and some paintballs and I reckon you will have a non lethal portable solution!!Ridley said:
Are people suggesting the use of shotguns in densely populated areas? Eagles are a strange idea but for dumbness you're easily topping them.
Not really, shotguns are only dangerous close up (50-100 metres) the pellets spread and lose energy very quickly compared to bullets. It'd sting a bit but you would need a direct hit within a lot less than 50 metres for it to be lethal to a human.
Having said that, maybe the strategy is to use the shotgun on the drone operator not the drone itself. That would discourage people
Super Slo Mo said:
Ridley said:
Are people suggesting the use of shotguns in densely populated areas? Eagles are a strange idea but for dumbness you're easily topping them.
Not really, shotguns are only dangerous close up (50-100 metres) the pellets spread and lose energy very quickly compared to bullets. It'd sting a bit but you would need a direct hit within a lot less than 50 metres for it to be lethal to a human.
Having said that, maybe the strategy is to use the shotgun on the drone operator not the drone itself. That would discourage people
using 'bird-shoot' from a shotgun aiming skywards has not potential fall-out issues, no problems with bullets traveling far from source, etc etc. does not take much to knock a drone out, so using a cartridge with a high number of small pellets has a high chance of hitting the drone and no problem with falling pellets doing damage.
te hawk".HerrSchnell said:
halo34 said:
A clay also has a defined trajectory (I have tried it a few times)
Not lately, the winds had them all over the place. That said emperical proof is better than conjecture. You've got a drone, I've got a shotgun. How about we try this out?
I'll come and video it!
HerrSchnell said:
Not lately, the winds had them all over the place.
That said emperical proof is better than conjecture. You've got a drone, I've got a shotgun. How about we try this out?
I decline the kind offer on the basis I am more than capable (fully evidenced) of smashing my own drones to pieces on the ground That said emperical proof is better than conjecture. You've got a drone, I've got a shotgun. How about we try this out?
halo34 said:
I decline the kind offer on the basis I am more than capable (fully evidenced) of smashing my own drones to pieces on the ground
No worries, there's some kids use one on the fields out the back at weekends.I think the element of surprise will add to the realism of the experiment.
Einion Yrth said:
GetCarter said:
I'd just like to point out that drones are not the problem, it's the 'nut behind the wheel' that should be shot.
You appear to be volunteering to be shot, Mr. Carter.Edited by GetCarter on Monday 8th February 19:30
My point being - there are both good and bad places to fly drones. Near people is generally bad (and against the law).
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 8th February 19:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff