|
Captain Apollo posted:Welp :drones:
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
slidebite posted:Serious question though, is it really a problem? You hear about idiots flying near airports every now and then, but in the big picture is there even a problem that needs to be solved? I see the potential for unintended consequences being pretty large. Hopefully if something like this does go ahead it gets tightened up significantly in the review/consultation phase. A big part of the problem is that most of what people want to do with drones is in a grey area or outright illegal under current regulations. The solution for a lot of operators has been to just say "screw the law" and do it anyway. That's not such a big deal when you're talking about a wedding photographer getting an overhead shot with a Parrot, but when you get into the big leagues, the problems get thornier. If the wedding photographer can openly flout the law with their non-redundant toy, why not somebody with a much heavier custom drone for Hollywood movie shoots? Do we crack down on everybody, including the people who are effectively harmless? Do we crack down on nobody, and write it off as the cost of doing business if a heavy commercial drone crashes on somebody's car in a populated area? Having clear rules for everybody is a really good thing if you want to encourage responsible development. That's especially true when you're telling the public that you'll be suspending complex machines over their heads, that could easily fall out of the sky if something goes wrong. A lot of drone operators are getting  because there will be rules, and they'll have to pay attention to them, but they're ignoring what will likely happen otherwise: they get to play in the wild west for a while, then somebody does something really big and really stupid, and the huge public backlash hits them far harder than rules developed in advance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Is this for the DoD contracts handed out for Russian Air Force to carry the heaviest poo poo to Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Is this for the DoD contracts handed out for Russian Air Force to carry the heaviest poo poo to Middle East? Antonov is a Ukrainian company (in this case, the airframe designer and the cargo airline are one and the same), and while they do a fair bit of hauling for military applications, ADB also do a ton of civilian contracts. I see them once every three to six months around where I live, hauling stuff in support of the oil and gas industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Is this for the DoD contracts handed out for Russian Air Force to carry the heaviest poo poo to Middle East? Not sure. But it's in the air right now, headed to Columbus http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/A124
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
My bad, confused the countries. Ukraine's gonna be part of Russia soon anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Antonov is a Ukrainian company (in this case, the airframe designer and the cargo airline are one and the same), and while they do a fair bit of hauling for military applications, ADB also do a ton of civilian contracts. I see them once every three to six months around where I live, hauling stuff in support of the oil and gas industry. Dumb question - is Antonov now completely hosed as a company because their biggest customer is the Russian Military?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb question - is Antonov now completely hosed as a company because their biggest customer is the Russian Military? Right now the An-124 lift contracts are what's keeping them afloat, apparently. They've still got a few An-158s to build for Cuba, I think, and maybe an overhaul contract for the Indian Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb question - is Antonov now completely hosed as a company because their biggest customer is the Russian Military? Short term, no, Antonov is doing alright. But, the business is unsustainable long-term as not only do they not have the resources to design and build a replacement aircraft, they would very likely be the only customers for it - the market for civilian oversize cargo aircraft like the An-124 and -225 is a few dozen worldwide at the most.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
I saw this shared someplace and the guy has got a kick rear end series, guessing that is the Mach Loop in Wales. Probably been in this thread before but hey I hadn't seen it! IMG_7080 by welshi23, on FlickrHis complete set is loving awesome. So cool  IMG_7026a by welshi23, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Pssh fighters. loving amateurs them (check the co-pilot pulling his apple off the side window)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
 DRONECHAThttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmXYwoPwSg
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
The best Mach Loop pic:
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Good ad for gopro at least...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
At least someone got a free gopro out of it. I doubt the uploader is the owner/operator but he will probably (hopefully) have the authorities knocking on his door regardless. I have personally seen at least one instance where a professional drone/uav company flew through the ILS area of an active landing runway at our local international airport by accident due to a software fault (thing ended up in the garden of a colleague of mine... A straight line between the starting point and where it ended up had the approach area in it. Oops). It was all solved amicably and the poor guy learned his lesson, but it could have ended up very badly very easily indeed, even though it was not a very large machine and it never went above 500 feet Meanwhile there are still no real rules or regulations in EASA-land.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
There was a drone who almost crashed with a helicopter in Norway a month ago. A military helicopter was on final approach, about 400 meters from the runway and a drone flew 15-30 meters above it. There wouldn't be any need for regulation if drones were unavailable to morons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Yea gently caress that guy in the video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Pssh fighters. loving amateurs them Amen. Blue Angels? Thunderbirds? Oh, that's cute, I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjZMWI77b84
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's not enforceable. Like hell it isn't. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:There wouldn't be any need for regulation if drones were unavailable to morons. This is true for pretty much all regulations, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Oooh, the schadenfreude is strong with this video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
This is loving hilarious. Every time you think that one last insult has been added to the injury, there is always one more. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a wheel stamping on an unmanned aircraft - forever. vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would someone think that is a good idea to do. It's amazing how stupid people can make enough money to afford drones. THANKS OBAMA
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: My favorite part about this image is that the lower missiles are mounted to the upper missiles. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: Hahahahahaha For the record the quad-rail launchers (like you see mounted on Apaches) are something that GA regularly portrays the Reaper carrying in promotional drawings and poo poo, despite the fact that they would never actually be a thing on a real airframe for a whole bunch of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: needs more dakka
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Hahahahahaha Do the reasons include "would look way too cool in real life"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Probably weight, flat plate drag, and ground clearance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Not that it's any less ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure those are just the regular double launchers, not quads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: The only way that would be better is if there were two sidewinders on the wingtips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The only way that would be better is if there were two sidewinders on the wingtips. Nope. It'd be better if they mirrored the hardpoints on *top* of the wing as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:The only way that would be better is if there were two sidewinders on the wingtips. Needs
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
It's only going to be another 10 or so years now! (But this is an election year and the slowness over the making of this decision is a goddamn embarrassment so) Fixed wing SAR aircraft choices whittled down to three. These are the C-27J Spartan, the C-130J, and Airbus's C295. There are no Canadian dogs in this hunt as the requirements were rejiggered to get rid of them, for all I know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
quote:“For your information, we have also provided similar cost data on the A-10 aircraft,” states an unclassified memo War Is Boring obtained from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. “The estimated cost to make 275 A-10s nuclear capable is $15.9 million.” https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-a-10-might-have-become-a-nuclear-strike-plane-8f065b09afe0 lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-a-10-might-have-become-a-nuclear-strike-plane-8f065b09afe0 yeah unless they were planning on dropping davy crockett rounds, i dont see that ending well for the a-10 pilot
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:yeah unless they were planning on dropping davy crockett rounds, i dont see that ending well for the a-10 pilot CAS nukes wouldn't go well for the troops either  Possibly overkill as well...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: Load‐bearing ordnance. 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:There are no Canadian dogs in this hunt as the requirements were rejiggered to get rid of them, for all I know.  Have some gaudily colored Egyptian Rafale. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
I would be perfectly happy with a Canadian Osprey
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:43
|
|
