Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While that Cessna looks like it might be a good idea, keep in mind that some of Russia's drone have a top speed close to the 172's top end.
This means that chasing the drones would be a protracted event, much like the RAF experienced early on while chasing V-1s.
The AT-802U (OA-1K) has a top speed well over 200mph and is fitted with 10 hardpoints, so it's armament potential is really versatile and it as good maneuverability as well.
Well, you know, if you deleted the nose armor, eliminate the heater (as you mentioned) and move the IFF around...Fire up the Hawker Tempest production line. Or even the P-39, of course omitting the heater.
Well, you know, if you deleted the nose armor, eliminate the heater (as you mentioned) and move the IFF around...
Wait.
Oh hell no, we're not going down that rabbit hole.
Nope.
No sir.
Too short rangeHow about some IL-2 Sturmoviks?
How about some IL-2 Sturmoviks?
I like this one.There is no need to start a new version of any ww2 aircraft for most drones. They are relatively slow.
Some of the homebuilt pylon racers or competition aerobatic aircraft would be able to take out drones by tipping them like they did to the V-1s at a far lower cost than any of the good stuff and they can, and are, built off plans at a relatively low cost.
Reno Formula 1 aircraft are powered the Continental O-200 engine (the same 100 hp engine used in a Cessna 150). The fastest Formula 1 aircraft exceed 250 mph. Most would have a low radar signature.
Aerobatic aircraft like the Stephens Akro and Lazer are much more powerful, fast and very manoeuvrable and would also have a very low radar signature.