Attempted Takedown with Shotgun?

[brett8883]

That's exactly correct - so I think you misunderstood my explanation. I said that the rotation rate is a second-order effect - in mathematical terms that means that it has little effect on the result. The rotation contribution to the probability is ml/30v, which comes to 0.01 at those rotation rates and speed - insignificant compared to the geometric contribution.

Cool! I surprise myself sometimes. But then if that’s the case the eyeball test tells me you’d need an octoblade to get to 1:3 ratio? I think it would take two more blades between each of these to completely cover the surface area at .5r

 

[AMann]

I thought we ended on a good note. Seeing the damaged prop and the photos got me a little upset.

I am trying to provide and perform a legitimate service without infringing on anyone's rights (to privacy or otherwise.) If there was more damage to the drone, I would consider contacting the police immediately.

However, I think it's another learning opportunity. I can see his point of frustration with a drone flying near or over his property even if I have every legal right to do so. I get it - the paranoia of someone spying on them with a tool like the Mavic 2 Pro or similar product.

I'm thinking that with some advanced scheduling, and about $7 worth of postage and cardstock, I could print a notification to inform people in the immediate area of upcoming drone activity.

Thoughts?

I used to do survey work that required me going into a creek area at 3 AM behind some houses, and the water district tried using letters to inform people we were coming but they still called the sheriff’s office. The deputies responded with guns drawn when they saw us. I used the knock on doors and introduce myself method after that and it solved all the problems we had before.

 

[sar104]

Cool! I surprise myself sometimes. But then if that’s the case the eyeball test tells me you’d need an octoblade to get to 1:3 ratio? I think it would take two more blades between each of these to completely cover the surface area at .5rView attachment 72029

The calculation was intended to be at the radius at which the prop was damage occurred, which I estimated to be 85 mm, and you are correct again - (w + d)/πr at that location gives 0.1, or around 1/10, not 1/3. Not sure how I got the arithmetic wrong, so thanks for pointing out the obvious discrepancy.

 

[FormerMember07122019_2]

Not sure how I got the arithmetic wrong ...l

Now that is a rare occurrence. I might go out and buy a lottery ticket. ?

 

[WeeBotOne]

Rat/snake shot is available for most calibers including .22 rimfire. .22 is also very quiet, not much louder than a fire cracker and if it's between houses the sound may not carry. Rat/snake shot is basically a rifle/handgun cartridge that has multiple small projectiles instead of a single bullet. Even a .22 rat shot has 5-7 small B-B's and one of them could easily cause the damage on the prop.....

 

[kilomikebravo]

Wee: But there would have been evidence of other pellets hitting the aircraft. Ditto for a shotgun. It was either an insect strike <grin> or an air rifle of some sort with a BB or pellet is my guess.

 

[John MacAulay]

Here in Canada, If I fired my shotgun (or any weapon for that matter) in close proximity to houses, I would immediately be visited by the RCMP, my weapon would be confiscated and I would have a date with a judge. Not a doubt in my mind.

 

[WeeBotOne]

Wee: But there would have been evidence of other pellets hitting the aircraft. Ditto for a shotgun. It was either an insect strike <grin> or an air rifle of some sort with a BB or pellet is my guess.

That's very likely. I was just considering a possibility that a rat shot .22 with only 5-7 tiny pellets might have a single pellet hit the blade and the others miss.... It would depend on the spread of the pattern and the distance the shot had to travel. Rat/snake shot tends to lose velocity quickly, which is why it's relatively safe to use even in close quarters.

 

[Dizzydan]

I got a last minute job from a client to go to a property in Stockton (CA) and get some aerial photos for the realtor to use. I was behind the property obscured by brush when a large white pickup truck drove by. I figure they were looking for me, but I continued what I was doing, landed my Mavic and started walking toward my car. The truck pulls up alongside of me, and the 50-60 something German guy says "why are you flying your drone over my property?". I told him I'm taking photos for a realtor and that I was not taking photos of his property.

He asked why I didn't notify the neighbors, and I told him that I didn't intend to spend too much time taking the photos, but agreed that I should have made an effort to notify the neighbors on either side of the home and apologized if the drone made him uncomfortable. I offered to let him look at the photos on the card. He refused and said he had his shotgun out and was going to shoot it out of the sky.

We talked a little more and I got him to calm down and our conversation became more cordial. I informed him that I was going to take a few more shots in front of the house and he was good with that. I offered to take aerial photos of his property and he accepted. After taking the photos in front of the house, I started packing away the drone and noticed that one of my front props had a good chunk of it missing. I get home and started working on my photos and zoomed into their yard and noticed the wife watching the drone, and then, further down the sequence of shots, I see the husband holding a rifle. I'm not sure what make/model but now I'm thinking that he actually shot at it and the missing chunk was from a bullet. I'm not certain, but now, although we seemed to end our conversation on good terms, I'm a little upset.

My takeaway from this, is that in the future, I will make an effort to inform neighbors of the activity. However, I think the attempted takedown of the drone crossed the line.

View attachment 71902

View attachment 71899View attachment 71901View attachment 71901

Report him to the police and faa

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I didn't file a police report. I don't have any conclusive evidence.

You don't need conclusive evidence, as someone else mentioned -- it definitely warrants an investigation, even if there are no guarantees that the perp will get charged with anything.

Consider this: a visit from an official holding your photo of him/wife would give that guy pause before doing that again, especially if that official informed him what it would have cost if he had brought the aircraft down out of the sky.

Add to that: if we ALL did that for all of these cases, word gets around. Because no matter how many times I correct someone on a 1 to 1 basis about how wrong it is to shoot a UAV down, I find someone the next day saying the same damned thing. Onsies isn't fixing it.

You would do us all a good service by taking the effort.

THAT this is a bad thing to do needs to become common knowledge. Remember that most folk complained about <insert newfangled technology here> until everybody either had one or got used to them being around.

Chris

 

[JackPro2]

.177 Caliber pellet guns are capable of doing this and you'd never hear it. Pellet guns are available that mimic a firearm to the point it is nearly impossible to distinguish them at close distance, and it is impossible to tell from the distance of that photo.

There are points for and against filing a police report. Given his unstable character I would not go back to see this guy without the police if you chose that route.

 

[one_crazy_dude]

I was looking up something I remembered about fighters in ww1 firing through their front props without a timing gear to come up with what the probability of hitting the prop would be stubbled on this video which was so cool I don't care about math any more

Slo-mo guys are awesome

 

[kilomikebravo]

Despite the small image, you can see that the rifle has an optic and the barrel is small in diameter. Those rule out a shotgun which pretty much only leaves a .22LR rifle, or .22/.177/BB/pellet rifle.

 

[erkme73]

IF you file a report, is there a chance he can determine your identity? My only concern would be him serving cold revenge - in a way you won't see coming, can't prevent, or be able to prove (i.e. keyed vehicles/slashed tires, etc).

As for what kind of weapon it was, I have a suppressed AR22-15 that will fire sub-sonic 22LR so quietly, the only thing you hear is the hammer dropping and the 'ting' the round makes down range. Though, given the difficulty in legally obtaining a suppressor, this seems rather unlikely. If it was a fired projectile, I'm going with pellets as well.

 

[kilomikebravo]

erkme: Yep, a suppressor on any firearm can accomplish some amazing sound reduction but that's not an AR in the photo, it's a wooden stock rifle without a suppressor.

 

[MRomine]

I have equipped my Maverick c with a 40mm howitzer just for situations like this. Self defense you know.

 

[endlesssummer]

If it was a shotgun the cat laying by that two-story shed would have high tailed it out of there.

 

[Bledsoe1qb]

Good job handling the situation

 

[BD0G]

What we must not forget is the person with the guns "intent". His intent was to fire a rifle of some type at your property (Mavic) when to do so is a Federal Offense. If it is a true rifle and not a pellet gun of some variant then there are also laws against discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Reporting him would allow law enforcement to follow up and give the person reported a wake up call.

A semi automatic suppressed .22 with scope would make for a very capable gun to take down Mavic's though. Great plinking gun.

 

[Joe Boudreault]

That’s a pump action shot gun and there’s no way you wouldn’t have heard it. It will make the ground tremble. It would have done a lot more damage than that too.

Scatter of shot would not make such a small defined hole on prop. It's likely a bullet.