Pirker Case Development
- Thread starter SilentAV8R
- Start date
sdtrojan said:
The guy has been around for some time. Check this video out from 2010:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78[/youtube]
I hope this doesn't get taken the wrong way, because I am as excited as anyone about gettng up in the air and the technology in general, but this guy and his videos are exactly the reason why the FAA is shaking in its boots. I think until FPV came along and got popular the thought of using a R/C aircraft as a weapon seemed far-fetched. I would say now it is a legitimate concern in urban areas.
FAA is not at all concerned about possible use as a weapon. Their one and only concern is air safety. I have heard directly from more than one FAA person involved in this process over the years. "It's not our job." That is what DHS, etc. are for. Now they may be concerned, but everything the FAA is doing is for air safety, since that is their one and only mission.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
And besides, radio control has been around for 50 years. If it was effective for that sort of thing, the people that are motivated that way would have been all over it well before now. But they have a lot of other ways to do what they do much bigger and easier.sdtrojan said:
well, hopefully I am wrong. I know agencies collaborate on things...just saying. its like colleges having to give up football scholarships. The next year their track team is stacked with scholarship studs.
Things have a way of getting done, regardless of how it is sold to the public, and the minions at the agencies too.
Things have a way of getting done, regardless of how it is sold to the public, and the minions at the agencies too.
meta4,
at tactical level, this could be the equivalent of a guided missile (granted not as fast). Many air-air missiles employ surprisingly small warheads.
at tactical level, this could be the equivalent of a guided missile (granted not as fast). Many air-air missiles employ surprisingly small warheads.
I count on the mindset that they each have their own tightly guarded territory that they are very unwilling to share with others. So when I hear FAA say that their entire focus is safety, I tend to believe them. I especially think so because they do not want t be the ones held accountable if something bad happens on any front other than the safety front.
The warhead is designed to destroy the missile, not the target. The Sidewinder, for example, moves at Mach 2.5 and when it approaches the target, it explodes, causing steel rods in the warhead to tumble and disperse radially. Those rods are still moving at Mach 2.5, packing an awful lot of kinetic energy. A few of them tear through the target, fragmenting further and causing serious damage.sdtrojan said:
Similar threads
