5 ms·
Are you serious? Do you honestly think a $300 RC quadrocopter can handle the kick of a gun?
by thesis 15y ago
Are you serious? Do you honestly think a $300 RC quadrocopter can handle the kick of a gun?
- aero142 15y agoI'll bet it can handle a 22 short.
- pilgrim689 15y agoA terrorist with a bomb is a threat. Terrorists with rickety flying .22s... That would just be fun to watch!
- Confusion 15y agoStampedes due to a gun being fired in the middle of a crowd are not fun to watch. Terrorists aren't out to do such things though; surprisingly, they have other goals than causing random terror. Psychopaths on the other hand...
- pilgrim689 15y agoExactly. Terrorists trying to fight a war with flying .22s would be pathetic. They would never get even 1 shot in before the thing is taken down. I think a few people downvoting me and/or posting about the threat these things might cause don't really understand the state of this technology and/or basic physics. We weren't talking about psychopaths. Everything is a threat in the hands of a psychopath. Give a psychopath a spoon and I'd still be worried.
- Estragon 15y agoThe definition of terrorist seems to have shifted. It used to refer to someone intent on fomenting terror in a population, but you seem to be using it to talk about soldiers in a combat situation.
- pilgrim689 15y agoYou answer your own question with "It used to refer to...". But even so, I still don't think a flying .22 will cause "terror". Planes crashing into buildings in big cities and killing 3000 people causes "terror".
- cbetz 15y agoopposing barrels fired simultaneously might work, though it would be a bit wasteful.
- pilgrim689 15y agoI don't think so... Where is all your extra energy going?
- MiguelHudnandez 15y agoIn roughly equal and opposite directions. You'd just need something between the two weapons to withstand the compressive force.
- pilgrim689 15y ago"In roughly equal and opposite directions" sounds like you think energy cancels other energy like opposing forces do. The energy needs to go somewhere; it can't bump into MORE energy and disappear. What would this "something" that absorbs all of it be?
- Symmetry 15y agoThis is a well understood problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
- politician 15y agoDoes it need to be able to fire more than once?
- rosstafarian 15y agoheh that's actually an interesting problem, it would depend on how many times the gun needs to fire, also how stable can the copter be as it fires? if it only needs to get one shot off then you're good(but then it'd be more practical to load the thing with explosives, ugh that idea gives me nightmares) maybe some sort of dual gyroscopic stabilizer like a camera coupled with opposing barrels as some one mentioned, but using blanks instead of live ammo?
- stfu 15y agoHow about some real world experiments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this. Just found it one night strolling around on YouTube..
- sesqu 15y agoThere are a number of very low-recoil guns in existence. There was even a video a few years back of a group of friends who mounted a paintball gun to a quadrocopter. So yes.
- pilgrim689 15y agoHaving fired real guns and paintball guns, I can tell can you this proves absolutely nothing.
- lupatus 15y agoA properly designed muzzle brake will reduce the kick by 50%, potentially making the recoil small enough that your quadcopter could handle it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake