LoneRCRanger
Well-Known Member
Saw this link on YouTube. Is this the future of our hobby? Hope not!
Future of the Quadcopter? Scary!
- Thread starter LoneRCRanger
- Start date
I can honestly say that I am beginning to hate most mainstream media. What ever they speak on they are terribly under informed. This is not mainstream media, but definitely the direction they go with this scary 'new' technology.
A device like this would never work, nor make it that close to the base unnoticed. It is no different than taking an apache gunship(s) off and expecting it to be able to do that much damage with it's unlimited ammo and magical undetectability.
Safe to say that this has no more value than entertainment, and basically no real military implications.
A device like this would never work, nor make it that close to the base unnoticed. It is no different than taking an apache gunship(s) off and expecting it to be able to do that much damage with it's unlimited ammo and magical undetectability.
Safe to say that this has no more value than entertainment, and basically no real military implications.
tylorwashere
Well-Known Member
Is that some sort of rocket launching gatling gun? Good lord how could you ever carry that much ammo for something like that
LoneRCRanger
Well-Known Member
What's scary is it is a workable concept. Take Sikorsky, who invented the helicopter. Would he ever had thought that it would mature into the Huey, Cobra, Blackhawk and Apache? When he demonstrated it to the President (Truman?) the military minds were there and, I am sure, quickly figuring out how they could put a gun on it. I guess we have to wait and see what the military has in mind for our "toys".
Well comparing that thing in the video to our quads is like comparing model helis or toy helis to the AH-64 Apache.
On a full scale setup the helis have a lot of safety and durability benefits that quadcopter designs just don' have.
LoneRCRanger
Well-Known Member
Not yet, anyway... Recall the difference between the V-2 rocket and the Saturn 5 rocket. They were both rockets but of completely different technologies. One was a bomb carrier. The other helped put men on the moon. The Wright Brothers built their flier, which flew about 500 feet. We have the Boeing 787 that can carry over 300 passengers half way around the world. They both flew, but the technology is totally different. Someone dreamed up the 787. Where there is a will, there is a way. I have a vision for a gasoline/electric powered 'manned' quadcopter. It would be based on the Phantom 3/4 Quadcopter. The power supply technology comes from the same principle as the diesel electric locomotive. This quad would fly with electric motors powered by a gas electric generator. If I can think that up, imagine what an aeronautic engineer could do?
LoneRCRanger
Well-Known Member
Looks like an advanced Cobra Gun Ship of the Vietnam conflict era. A long way from Sikorsky's Open Cockpit Helicopter of the late 1940s.
Quadcopter102
Well-Known Member
Whatever weapon one country invents.. another will invent a counter attack version of it thus reducing its capability...... the tank came about in WW1 to counter the German machines guns that were massed to wipe out the English/American and Commonwealth troops in 1000s per attack while Generals sat well away from danger, mud and s**t the troops lived and died in.
The first military airplanes were brought into action as spotters for the Artillery and spying on troop position. Then opposing pilots started shooting at the other using pistols and later rifles. Then guns were fitted to the airplane to defend or attack the other side.
later some Pilots dropped grenades or mortar shells... and the bomber was born....
The first military airplanes were brought into action as spotters for the Artillery and spying on troop position. Then opposing pilots started shooting at the other using pistols and later rifles. Then guns were fitted to the airplane to defend or attack the other side.
later some Pilots dropped grenades or mortar shells... and the bomber was born....