pmccarthy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 A video on Telegram shows what is clearly a weaponised A22 Foxbat hitting a barracks about 1000 km east of Moscow, with a big explosion. This is a still from the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 I have been thinking about this. I reckon a stripped down A22 would weigh about 280kg and could safely fly at 700kg AUW. Allow 70kg for fuel, it could carry 350kg of explosives. It would not need instruments, seats etc other than an autopilot and a throttle servo. Range wold be well plus 1000 km. I would paint it in Russian civil colours with a blow-up blonde female doll in the pilot position. Is this how Ukraine has been hitting deep into Russia? An 80HP 912 with 2000 hours on it would cost US$5000 in Europe. You could build the whole thing for $50k, very cheap for that capability. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Ukraine has been reading Bruce Tunk's posts. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted April 2 Author Share Posted April 2 Didn't Bruce want to use Jabirus? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 That WOULD make his worth more. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Bit of a shame they didn't hit the actual factory instead of the workers accommodation. I'd really like to see a Russian ammo or drone factory in flames. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Would it not be quicker to turn out composite aircraft/drones? Additional bonus would be speed & duration, possibly even less radar signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 I wouldn't presume to give them any advice. They already do pretty well with the stuff they have against a mob who is supposed to be a World Power and threatens to nuke Western Countries OFF the face of the earth. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted April 4 Author Share Posted April 4 The Foxbat is an existing design that works. Remove the non-essential bits and you are left with a reliable drone. I saw one commentary today that said they will hit the bridge with ten Foxbats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 12 hours ago, pmccarthy said: The Foxbat is an existing design that works. Remove the non-essential bits and you are left with a reliable drone. I saw one commentary today that said they will hit the bridge with ten Foxbats. There are many European compost "existing designs" that use the same Rotax 9 engine family. "Remove the non-essential bits and you are left with a reliable drone" applies to all. I have only had the dubious pleasure of 1 hr in a Foxbat - aside from their , hardly unique, short field capability, not impressed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) I have many hours in a " A22 Foxbat " . ( 30s ) Very impressed by it comfort , as well as ease of operating . Would love to go flying again . BUT As my. CFI says " I'm wasting his time & my money " . It took a couple of ' blue years 'to get over that . & have not flown since . A nice new hip, a prostate rebore , I'll soon be a teenybopper , ( as soon as I'm out of these nappies ) . spacesailor Ps , four words changed by AI Edited April 4 by spacesailor P S 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 All aircraft are good - some are just better than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 ALL BEER is good but Grafton's tops. Some aircraft are dogs. The designers shouldn't have been let off their Leads. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted April 5 Author Share Posted April 5 Denys Davidov said today that he can now talk about the Foxbat, has known for some time that they were being used. He said they had autonomous versions for surveillance before the war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 6 hours ago, skippydiesel said: I have only had the dubious pleasure of 1 hr in a Foxbat - aside from their , hardly unique, short field capability, not impressed! I enjoy the Foxbat. Not particularly fast but otherwise a nice aircraft. And its comfortable for my 6'2". I must get back in one - have not flown one for almost a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 2 hours ago, facthunter said: ALL BEER is good but Grafton's tops. Some aircraft are dogs. The designers shouldn't have been let off their Leads. Nev I have been fortunate then. Every aircraft I have flown, I have enjoyed, some more than others, to be sure... to be sure😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 Some people didn't have a lot of choice what plane they got to fly. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 14 minutes ago, IanR said: I enjoy the Foxbat. Not particularly fast but otherwise a nice aircraft. And its comfortable for my 6'2". I must get back in one - have not flown one for almost a year. Yeah! well! what can I say --- 6ft 2in -- supplemental O2 territory, from my lowly 5 ft 7 1/2" perspective🤣. The 1/2 was important back in my (competitive) youth, skeletal shrinkage has long since eroded it away☹️ The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airfares, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled. Of course if you just want to stooge round your local, consumption/hour is likely to be the measure that you will apply. Edited April 5 by skippydiesel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 1 minute ago, facthunter said: Some people didn't have a lot of choice what plane they got to fly. Nev We can all dream and invest (?) in Lotto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just enjoy what you are stuck with UNTIL Perhaps money is no object. . Flying faster makes rough air more unpleasant and risky. You are NOT going fast till you reach say 300 Knots but IF you flew Concorde that would be slow. It's relative. The fastest GROUNDSPEED I've achieved is just over 700 Knots. But even that is not very noticeable at say FL330 and have nothing close to you.. It just means you'll have an ETA for "Someplace" a Bit more quickly than normal. A 150 knot plane may get ahead of you till You get used to it. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 2 hours ago, facthunter said: Just enjoy what you are stuck with UNTIL Perhaps money is no object. . Flying faster makes rough air more unpleasant and risky. You are NOT going fast till you reach say 300 Knots but IF you flew Concorde that would be slow. It's relative. The fastest GROUNDSPEED I've achieved is just over 700 Knots. But even that is not very noticeable at say FL330 and have nothing close to you.. It just means you'll have an ETA for "Someplace" a Bit more quickly than normal. A 150 knot plane may get ahead of you till You get used to it. Nev "The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airframe, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled." My interest in aircraft speed, is purely as a comparative gauge of airframe efficiency ie I am not intersted in speed for speeds sake, nor the use of ever higher powered engines to achieve it. I am aware that the sensation of speed, is largely lost once the aircraft is a few hundred feet off the ground, so this is not a driver for me. Likewise, the fact that I may arrive at my destination a few minutes ahead of another, similarly powered, aircraft, does nothing for my enjoyment of flight. I do get satisfaction from knowing I may have burnt appreciably less fuel per sector and may have additional range/fewer fuel stops as a consequence. As an illustration of my ethos in this area: Robyn Austin, perhaps the ultimate exponent - http://worldrecordplane.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Variety is the spice of life It is said.' Are you sure you don't have some Obsessive Compulsion thing going? I'm NOT trying to have a GO at you. Just askin? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 3 hours ago, facthunter said: Are you sure you don't have some Obsessive Compulsion thing going? I'm NOT trying to have a GO at you. Just askin? Nev I admire what Robyn Austin has achieved - quite remarkable and find it hard to understand why he has received so little recognition. I certainly am "Obsessive Compulsion" unfortunately not to the point where brilliant things may result. Seems to me many pilots are OC - needed to keep your aircraft flying safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Depends on how you express It. You take far more risks than I would.. You can achieve commendable outcomes when you set out just to fly a "Normal" DAY but something entirely unexpected comes out of the Blue and you survive. Nothing goes up in Lights, No Parties Your skills and training did what they should do. They say flying is 99%boredom 1% terror . Not true . You are TOO occupied to do the Terror Bit.. Years later you are having PTSD and wake up from Sweaty Nightmares, Happy to realise it's only a dream and why is your heart jumping out of your chest.? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Hi Nev, Me thinks you presume way too much. Your amature profiling of me or anyone with certain attributes (or collection thereof), in this case a tendency to OC, is far too rigid. Everyone is an individual in their mix & distribution of characteristics, so how they react, to their immediate, short & long-term environment, is unique. Then there is effect of of circumstance/age/gender/experince/training, which may mitigate/magnify certain traits. The view you have just expressed, would seem to suggest a rigidity of mind that "pigeonholes" people, based on mythology rather than science. Coupled with this is an inflated view of your own capabilities/personality, which can be a good thing but needs to be recognised, so that you can manage/moderate any tendency to absolute pronouncements/dogma.😜 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now