R/C attack hellicopter

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
The main problem would be radio transmission. The pilot would have to be within at least two-hundred yards VISIBLE or on a rooftop. You would need a radio station to broadcast the signal.

Second,

one of these babies with a jet turbine would work better. In some competitions with dual turbines, these things can dive approaching 200 miles an hour.

http://www.airtoi.nl/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=244
 

hevnsnt

Lifer
Mar 18, 2000
10,868
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: logic1485
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: logic1485
hevnsnt: i'm guessing that when the thing is upside down, it's blade are positioned such that is af it would go upwards, were it the right way up. (does that make sense?)

anyways, screw the VIPs, i want one of those!

variable pitch, the airfoil of the blades can be adjusted (remember a helicopter rotor is nothing more than a rotating wing generating lift)

hence it takes so much lift to manuever a copter like that, add in the shrapnel to make it truly lethal and you have a very large copter.

that is basically what i meant to say, but i said it the wrong way around, i think.

lemme try again: if the heli were right way up, the direction the force is generated at that moment would make the plane go downwards, thus in effect, when the plane is upside down, the plane goes up, or hovers.

is that right?

pretty much - the rotor generates lift. that force can be directed in any direction.


Yeah I understand that.. But how come you don't see full scale heli's flying upside down?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: hevnsnt
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: logic1485
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: logic1485
hevnsnt: i'm guessing that when the thing is upside down, it's blade are positioned such that is af it would go upwards, were it the right way up. (does that make sense?)

anyways, screw the VIPs, i want one of those!

variable pitch, the airfoil of the blades can be adjusted (remember a helicopter rotor is nothing more than a rotating wing generating lift)

hence it takes so much lift to manuever a copter like that, add in the shrapnel to make it truly lethal and you have a very large copter.

that is basically what i meant to say, but i said it the wrong way around, i think.

lemme try again: if the heli were right way up, the direction the force is generated at that moment would make the plane go downwards, thus in effect, when the plane is upside down, the plane goes up, or hovers.

is that right?

pretty much - the rotor generates lift. that force can be directed in any direction.


Yeah I understand that.. But how come you don't see full scale heli's flying upside down?

less force required to pull than push
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
It'd be a waste of energy. Those things are LOUD. They sound like a weedwhacker. It'd be pretty obvious where the person that started the engine on the thing was, because he couldn't be more than a 1/4 mile or so from the target, due to the range of the radio.

Also, the success rate for assassinations of presidents with plain old rifles and handguns is pretty high. You don't need to use an R/C helicopter when you can just hide across the street in a library with a sniper rifle.
 

gabemcg

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,597
0
76
there is no way this sort of idea would be harder to put into effect than 911 type attacks, so don't say anything is impossible (or infeasable(word?) for that matter.
 

gabemcg

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,597
0
76
Originally posted by: notfred
It'd be a waste of energy. Those things are LOUD. They sound like a weedwhacker. It'd be pretty obvious where the person that started the engine on the thing was, because he couldn't be more than a 1/4 mile or so from the target, due to the range of the radio.

Also, the success rate for assassinations of presidents with plain old rifles and handguns is pretty high. You don't need to use an R/C helicopter when you can just hide across the street in a library with a sniper rifle.

boo, who would even suggest using this sort of thing for he who holds the highest office

(B1g 8r0ther 1z w4tching)
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
umm you'd need to be able to see the helicopter and the target... that would put you within 2-300 meters of the bomb, so youd be a suicide bomber de facto.
Also the secret service would be able to shoot that thing down, most of them have automatic submachine guns (mp5). One hit to the rotor fits and it's done.
 

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
I may be stating the obvious, but who could shoot something like that done. Until now i wouldve thought those manuevers impossible.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: gabemcg
there is no way this sort of idea would be harder to put into effect than 911 type attacks, so don't say anything is impossible (or infeasable(word?) for that matter.

yeah, but there's that whole newton thing in the way.

damn him!

"oh look!!!! Its coming rigth for us!!!!!!!"

5 minutes later....

"look, its still coming right for us!!!!"
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: roguerower
I may be stating the obvious, but who could shoot something like that done. Until now i wouldve thought those manuevers impossible.

they are when you add some weight.

damn newton and his laws.
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Here's a better (yet more expensive) idea. This idea requires at least two people, and probably at least $50,000, but I think it'd have a better chance of working.

You start by building a single-seat aircraft. You can base it on one of the commercially available kitplanes out there. You build it with a quiet engine, paint it light gray or blue - something that blends into the sky easily, and generally try to make it inconspicuous, but without making it look like you're trying to camoflague it. You have to make one change to the design of the plane though - you add a bomb bay to it, big enough to drop something about 3 feet wide and 3 or 4 feet long.

The object that you're dropping is essentially a radio controlled glider. It's designed to go a lot faster with a lot lower glide ratio than most gliders. There are a couple cool things about the glider: it's silent, you can make the wings (which I'm guessing would be fairly stubby) transparent - it'd be difficult to see.

Say you design this glider to maintain 100mph or so, and a glide ratio of about 1:1. A typical R/C glider should have at least a 10:1 glide ratio, meaning that for every foot of altitude it loses, it covers 10 feet of distance. Our 1:1 glide ratio glider basically falls at a 45 degree angle. This means that if you drop it at 10,000 feet, you only have to be within two miles (horizontally) of your target. I lived near a small airport for a long time, and a small airplane like that isn't particularly noticeable from two miles away.

Anyway, your glider weighs about 25 pounds or so, most of which is explosives rigged to detonate when the thing experiences a massive shock (or when the pilot presses the "detonate" button). Other than that, it's got a battery, a radio, and a camera in the nose. Person 1 flies the plane, and person 2 watches the video feed from the camera in the nose of the glider, using that to control it. Now, this glider is about 3 feet long, and moving at about 100mph, and it's silent. By the time anyone saw the thing, assuming they were looking right at it as it came into view, They probably wouldn't have more than 5 seconds before it detonated. Even better, it's coming in from a 45 degree angle, making it well above the typical field of view for someone that's primarily concerned with someone attacking from the ground.

You've basically built a miniature smart bomb, and I think that as long as the guy piloting the bomb was able to aim it correctly, it has a pretty good chance of success.
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
Originally posted by: gabemcg
after showing this video to my dad, he posed the question:

What if one of these R/C helicopters were fitted a video camera and some sort of weapon (explosive, projectile, ect.) and used by terrorists to attack a person of great importance (self censorship for fear of big brother)? If the operator was as skilled as the dude in the video, I don't see any way the secret service would be able to protect him.

What do you think?

*note* I obviously do not condone this type of behavior, if anything. it could be used as a warning.

Fixed link


if theres one thing ive ever seen that made the phrase "defies physics" pop into my brain, that was it. im not very familiar at all with how a helicopter works, but certainly flying up side down seems wrong to me
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
Originally posted by: Wag
Frankly, THIS looks much more deadly.


omg i cant stop laughing!

the concept of flying lawn mowers is just too much for my drunk mind to take in!, me n my mates are in stitches!

cheers man
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,158
59
91
Originally posted by: notfred
Here's a better (yet more expensive) idea. This idea requires at least two people, and probably at least $50,000, but I think it'd have a better chance of working.

You start by building a single-seat aircraft. You can base it on one of the commercially available kitplanes out there. You build it with a quiet engine, paint it light gray or blue - something that blends into the sky easily, and generally try to make it inconspicuous, but without making it look like you're trying to camoflague it. You have to make one change to the design of the plane though - you add a bomb bay to it, big enough to drop something about 3 feet wide and 3 or 4 feet long.

The object that you're dropping is essentially a radio controlled glider. It's designed to go a lot faster with a lot lower glide ratio than most gliders. There are a couple cool things about the glider: it's silent, you can make the wings (which I'm guessing would be fairly stubby) transparent - it'd be difficult to see.

Say you design this glider to maintain 100mph or so, and a glide ratio of about 1:1. A typical R/C glider should have at least a 10:1 glide ratio, meaning that for every foot of altitude it loses, it covers 10 feet of distance. Our 1:1 glide ratio glider basically falls at a 45 degree angle. This means that if you drop it at 10,000 feet, you only have to be within two miles (horizontally) of your target. I lived near a small airport for a long time, and a small airplane like that isn't particularly noticeable from two miles away.

Anyway, your glider weighs about 25 pounds or so, most of which is explosives rigged to detonate when the thing experiences a massive shock (or when the pilot presses the "detonate" button). Other than that, it's got a battery, a radio, and a camera in the nose. Person 1 flies the plane, and person 2 watches the video feed from the camera in the nose of the glider, using that to control it. Now, this glider is about 3 feet long, and moving at about 100mph, and it's silent. By the time anyone saw the thing, assuming they were looking right at it as it came into view, They probably wouldn't have more than 5 seconds before it detonated. Even better, it's coming in from a 45 degree angle, making it well above the typical field of view for someone that's primarily concerned with someone attacking from the ground.

You've basically built a miniature smart bomb, and I think that as long as the guy piloting the bomb was able to aim it correctly, it has a pretty good chance of success.
Forwarding to Dept of Homeland Security, you'll be contacted soon. ;)
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: notfred
Here's a better (yet more expensive) idea. This idea requires at least two people, and probably at least $50,000, but I think it'd have a better chance of working.

You start by building a single-seat aircraft. You can base it on one of the commercially available kitplanes out there. You build it with a quiet engine, paint it light gray or blue - something that blends into the sky easily, and generally try to make it inconspicuous, but without making it look like you're trying to camoflague it. You have to make one change to the design of the plane though - you add a bomb bay to it, big enough to drop something about 3 feet wide and 3 or 4 feet long.

The object that you're dropping is essentially a radio controlled glider. It's designed to go a lot faster with a lot lower glide ratio than most gliders. There are a couple cool things about the glider: it's silent, you can make the wings (which I'm guessing would be fairly stubby) transparent - it'd be difficult to see.

Say you design this glider to maintain 100mph or so, and a glide ratio of about 1:1. A typical R/C glider should have at least a 10:1 glide ratio, meaning that for every foot of altitude it loses, it covers 10 feet of distance. Our 1:1 glide ratio glider basically falls at a 45 degree angle. This means that if you drop it at 10,000 feet, you only have to be within two miles (horizontally) of your target. I lived near a small airport for a long time, and a small airplane like that isn't particularly noticeable from two miles away.

Anyway, your glider weighs about 25 pounds or so, most of which is explosives rigged to detonate when the thing experiences a massive shock (or when the pilot presses the "detonate" button). Other than that, it's got a battery, a radio, and a camera in the nose. Person 1 flies the plane, and person 2 watches the video feed from the camera in the nose of the glider, using that to control it. Now, this glider is about 3 feet long, and moving at about 100mph, and it's silent. By the time anyone saw the thing, assuming they were looking right at it as it came into view, They probably wouldn't have more than 5 seconds before it detonated. Even better, it's coming in from a 45 degree angle, making it well above the typical field of view for someone that's primarily concerned with someone attacking from the ground.

You've basically built a miniature smart bomb, and I think that as long as the guy piloting the bomb was able to aim it correctly, it has a pretty good chance of success.

That is why they have no fly-zone around the president. Sure you could off some lesser person that way but the old sniper from the roof would be easyer, cheaper and more likely to work.

Edit: also they try to keep the president from being out in the open.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
Originally posted by: gabemcg
after showing this video to my dad, he posed the question:

What if one of these R/C helicopters were fitted a video camera and some sort of weapon (explosive, projectile, ect.) and used by terrorists to attack a person of great importance (self censorship for fear of big brother)? If the operator was as skilled as the dude in the video, I don't see any way the secret service would be able to protect him.

What do you think?

*note* I obviously do not condone this type of behavior, if anything. it could be used as a warning.

Fixed link
Shoot it down?
What do you think they use radio frequency jamming equipment for?