So are these things actually a threat or am I right in laughing at it?

>>32769604
They're a threat as recon. They can't carry enough payload to do any real damage. Far more useful to use them to spot mortars or artillery.

They can get an RC plane and strap an HD camera to it... same shit.

>>32769604
>They can't carry enough payload to do any real damage.
something that size definitely can

whether it's cost effect to use as a weapon is another matter but they can definitely be used as a flying ied

>>32769604
As someone that's built specialised drone systems, they are - I don't think they'll be a large scale threat any time soon; there's just not enough brains among ISIS to mass produce these things.

But otherwise, for $5000 you can build a fixed wing UCAV that can fly for several hundred kilometres or a few hours, drop a payload consisting of either several hand grenades or a mortar or two with considerable precision, and then fly back.

GPS jamming can partially defeat them, but systems widely available today can also operate off dead reckoning with sufficient precision for performing wide-area reconnaissance. Jamming the command link is also ineffective, as the ability to fly fully autonomous missions is basic stuff. Get a sufficiently skilled programmer with knowledge in computer vision (ie some radicalised western engineering / CS post-grad) and you could even have fully autonomous strike missions that don't rely on GPS or radio comms (it'd be jam-proof). Such a low-end system would get a lot of false positives and end up bombing nothing, if not civilians or friendlies, but ISIS wouldn't care.

>>32769726
A 'drone' by definition is just an unmanned aircraft; RC planes with HD cameras are a subset.

File: 20150711101913-7068.jpg (113KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 700x350px

The skywalker X8 now has more air to ground kills than some military jets.

>>32769862
>As someone that's built specialised drone systems, they are - I don't think they'll be a large scale threat any time soon; there's just not enough brains among ISIS to mass produce these things.
>But otherwise, for $5000 you can build a fixed wing UCAV that can fly for several hundred kilometres or a few hours, drop a payload consisting of either several hand grenades or a mortar or two with considerable precision, and then fly back.
If I took one of those foam X8s and used it to make molds for carbon fiber, would a strong CF version be able to fly at high speeds with a powerful motor?

I built a powerful electric motor controller that can handle about 10kw but the foam models are all too frail.

>>32769945
You could (so long as you have a launcher to go with it and either a big parachute, wheels or large field with tall, soft grass), but you'll run into some issues - CF blocks, reflects and conducts RF, so GPS will need to be mounted externally (which I imagine is no big deal anyway though).

Radio comms however will be slightly harder - for my system (which was fibreglass, aluminium and wood), I had decent sized landing gear (with nearly a foot's clearance from the ground), so antennas could sit down there and have a clear LOS. With an X8, you'll need to mount the antenna on top; I'd recommend on the outside of both winglets, but that's going to mean running running coax cable through the wings, which will cause interference with servo wires, etc. You can stick the antennas straight out the top of the fuselage, or on top of the nose, but you'll have not insignificant blind spots.

Using fibreglass would mitigate your issues, but fibreglass cracks more easily. If it's going to be heavy (PS, if you just want speed, heavier and more powerful isn't always the answer), you'll likely find yourself having to apply epoxy and/or patches every couple of landings (assuming you don't add wheels).

Overall, I'd recommend getting something sleeker (more chord, slightly less span), and something that can fit retractable landing gear. Even have a go at scratchbuilding something (out of foam, then using it as a mould) - if you know how to play Kerbal Space Program well, you have the necessary knowledge to make something unmanned fly.

>>32770073
>my system
what did it cost you

>>32770109
It was a team project that I was in charge of, so I wasn't the only one paying, but we bought and used this for the airframe: http://www.fpvmodel.com/new-mugin-3m-uav-v-tail-platform_g20.html

The global shutter camera used cost another significant amount (normal GoPros, etc get jello effects in video from the vibration of the motor and their rolling shutter). The rest of the avionics only cost maybe $1000.

The carbon fibre remarks are what I've seen who've built large ~3m wingspan carbon fibre airframes.

>>32770073
I would put a landing gear on, I'm interested in borrowing aspects of this strange slav thing, it uses the boundary layer to suck air over the body below stall speeds.

There's video of it flying, it looked like a small model then I saw a video of it up close, the thing must weigh so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MORIHfbRsmg

>>32769715
/thread
Haveyo seen the isis drone videos? It is extremely usefull to have eyes in the sky

>>32769715
this. You don't need diddly for payload when you have mortars and know exactly where you're hitting

>>32769862
Shut the fuck up Hayes

>>32769862
Are there suitable any small, cheap inertial navigation systems units?