Check out this flamethrower attachment for drones

[midian182]

WTF?! Drones might be fun, but have you ever thought they’d be better with a massive flamethrower attached? If so, an Ohio-based flamethrower supplier has the answer to your unusual prayers.

Throwflame is now selling the TF-19 Wasp, a flamethrower attachment for industrial drone platforms with payload capacities of 5Ibs or more. The company uses a DJI S1000 drone in its demo video below, which shows off the unit’s capabilities.

Featuring a one-gallon fuel tank, the TF-19 Wasp can hit targets 25 feet away and spurts flames for 100 seconds before requiring a refill.

While we’ve seen weapons on drones in the past, this attachment is designed for agricultural applications such as pest control, controlled burns in forest fire management, and snow/ice removal. It also has uses at pyrotechnic events and in movies, and can help train firefighters. It’s probably not meant for jungle warfare, though.

As you might expect, the TF-19 Wasp isn’t cheap. It costs $1,499, and that’s just for the attachment itself—no drone included. Throwflame told The Verge that it is offering custom-built drones for the TF-19 that range from $1,000 to $10,000 depending on specs such as flight speed and the image quality of the cameras.

Flamethrowers on drones isn’t something new. In 2015, a teenager posted a YouTube clip of his drone roasting a Thanksgiving turkey using the makeshift flamethrower he’d attached. A few months earlier, the same teen had uploaded a video of a homemade drone firing a semiautomatic pistol.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80993-check-out-flamethrower-attachment-drones.html

 

[stewi0001]

I'll get one for my war with mosquitoes! ;P

 

[Uncle Al]

If it can spray an odor type liquid I'll get one for my nasty neighbor!

 

[DukeJukem]

More like check out a preview of the fall of humanity...this isn't going to be good.

 

[Paultimate]

What a dumb title. This is like saying "wow look at this new rocket launcher attachment for vehicles!" Then having an image of a military tank.

That's not a drone anymore than as tank is a vehicle, stop with the stupid sensational headlines.

 

[captaincranky]

What a dumb title. This is like saying "wow look at this new rocket launcher attachment for vehicles!" Then having an image of a military tank.

That's not a drone anymore than as tank is a vehicle, stop with the stupid sensational headlines.

What in god's name are you talking about? The video plainly shows a drone with a flame thrower attached, in operation.

 

[cliffordcooley]

@captaincranky, I just knew I was going to be reading one of your post about how this put Musk thrower to shame. lol

 

[captaincranky]

@captaincranky, I just knew I was going to be reading one of your post about how this put Musk thrower to shame. lol

LOL Cliff, I've moved on from Musk's glorified cigarette lighter. (Well, unless somebody posts to that thread, and pops it to the top of the stack).

What I don't get, is some noob, on his 1st post, comes in blazing about, "sensationalized headlines", when the video plainly shows a flame thrower on a drone in action.

The post I'm quoting, makes no sense right from the jump. It's either commentary on the fact that too many medical marijuana prescriptions are being written, or that our visual acuity has finally descended to be on a par with our world ranking in reading

 

[netman]

Excellent at killing your pests and at the same time destroying your property! Well done ThrowFlame!

Spend $10 K and self destruct yourself!

 

[captaincranky]

Excellent at killing your pests and at the same time destroying your property! Well done ThrowFlame!

Spend $10 K and self destruct yourself!

Oh, you're just butt hurt you didn't get one of Musk's signature flamethrowers.

There is a concept in fire fighting called a back burn, (proper name "controlled burn") Here, have a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

In this case, a smaller vihicle actually makes sense, as it removes the task from endangering a human firefighter, and avoids , "fanning the flames", so to speak, with a larger craft such as a a helicopter. (Which BTW, risks not only the pilot's life, but the craft as well).

 

[netman]

Excellent at killing your pests and at the same time destroying your property! Well done ThrowFlame!

Spend $10 K and self destruct yourself!

Oh, you're just butt hurt you didn't get one of Musk's signature flamethrowers.

There is a concept in fire fighting called a back burn, (proper name "controlled burn") Here, have a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

In this case, a smaller vihicle actually makes sense, as it removes the task from endangering a human firefighter, and avoids , "fanning the flames", so to speak, with a larger craft such as a a helicopter. (Which BTW, risks not only the pilot's life, but the craft as well).

Oh yeh, your reasoning is the most convincing for an average Joe to buy this device and kill himself.... First this device should only be available for fire departments. Even in that case it only makes sense to use it to control burn a huge area which is usually in suburbs. No use for city fire fighting at all and small control burns will not be effective since fire balls can jump over the burn areas...

 

[captaincranky]

Oh yeh, your reasoning is the most convincing for an average Joe to buy this device and kill himself.... First this device should only be available for fire departments. Even in that case it only makes sense to use it to control burn a huge area which is usually in suburbs. No use for city fire fighting at all and small control burns will not be effective since fire balls can jump over the burn areas...

I made the same point as you're making now, with Musk's trash get rich quick scheme, "flamethrower", that it was a weapon, (albeit a feeble one), dangerous and shouldn't be made available to the general public, at least not without considerable governmental oversight..

Intel has proven with their aerial drone shows, these things could be employed in concert, in considerable numbers, to create almost any size back burn that might be needed.

One is yes, probably pointless. However a fleet of them could conceivably start a fire line of great length and depth, all again, without risking human life and very expensive piloted aircraft.