Jump to content

Just puttin ' this here


G+_George Kozi
 Share

Recommended Posts

That drone is an example of what Robert Ballancer warns is dangerous.

 

That could easily kill someone if the operartor looses control and that falls from an high altitude.

 

That drone looks about as big as a lazy boy recliner. Probably over 200lbs of gear. Not something for an amateur to try to fly in a populated area.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. That looks like the size of a DJI Phantom. It will fit in a backpack . Best of my recollection 50lbs is around the record lift. And it was airborne for a minute maybe. Very modified. Lifting a 35mm camera is high dollar. And they usually have emergency parachute, redundant control systems. 8 rotors; 4 rotors and 1 fails you are out a quadcopter. They don't have zoom. The video quality transmitted during flight takes you back to the 70's. And octocopter would make the most sense if it were a serious copter. It can still fly if a motor goes out. A college football player passing you a ball will hurt more than a 350 sized quad hitting you. The propellers when dislodged go straight up. They don't fly off to the side and stick you in the eye. They don't fall very fast either because of autorotation. Its easier to go up than down. Going above 400 feet, most people cannot see something that small.. When the quad looses connection. It likely lands where it took off or where its at that moment. You could take a full on top speed crash directly into you with minor damage but ruin the quadcopter. The predator drone is the size of a Bus, the biggest quadcopter are the size of an open umbrella. Smaller multi rotors are more fun. These types are first gen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll accept the risk of being the third David to chime in here.

 

I think the image shown was a bit bigger model than the Phantom. But the one shown is still not a very big copter.

 

I like the graduated risk approach to regulating. Here in Canada people who fly radio controlled aircraft are already licensed. They are permitted to fly drones if they want to. Obviously they are experienced in some ways to the risk and danger of powered flying vehicles (either the hovering or non-hovering kind). They also understand and learn about the areas which are prohibited for these flights. It was a pretty easy way to extend the licensing and require a compliance should there be any complaints or problems.

 

Father Robert was mostly cautioning hobbyists to become educated about the risks and was emphasizing some of the most dangerous aspects of this kind of flight. These systems can produce plenty of peripheral distraction which could cause an operator to lose their control.

 

I am most impressed with the GPS over-rides in the Phantom (in particular) where it will automatically return to a fixed location if the radio controller disconnects, the battery runs down to critical, or the machine develops an on-board problem.

 

It is of primary importance an operator not lose sight on their drone. It is only practical they not fly it over crowds or large groups, and an operator should be prepared to respond to any unforeseen problem very quickly. Most RC aircraft operators gain experience quickly and most will pass their licensing requirements rather easily if they've been chumming around with other experienced pilots. It's a shared knowledge.

 

I also still think Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ is missing out on his chance to be a billionaire if he doesn't quickly get into the home-security drone protection system field. A household jammer button installation could allow people to capture a drone flying too near their home. I think this is definitely a growth industry. :-)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...