F-16 Drone - a full size UAV

[Great Pumpkin]

Imagine flying one of these UAVs - 40,000 feet AGL, 500 mph, no tip-over on landing! Whatta a rush!

http://video.boeing.com/services/pl...HYj2MSytJiEK9s5fy&bclid=0&bctid=2684464741001

 

[sdtrojan]

Having flown in an F-16 and pulling 5 G's, a remotely piloted F-16 pulling 9 G's is so much more capable. Humans limit the capability of these aircraft.

 

[eckoner]

wow that is so cool and to think of future applications that it can be retro-fitted for.
And yes i agree humans have limited the capabilities of these super high speed, and aggressive maneuvering toys. It will be very interesting to see how they continue to push the capabilities now that there is no need for an onboard pilot.

 

[kitari]

wow that is so cool and to think of future applications that it can be retro-fitted for.
And yes i agree humans have limited the capabilities of these super high speed, and aggressive maneuvering toys. It will be very interesting to see how they continue to push the capabilities now that there is no need for an onboard pilot.

Just imagine if they used this technology for commercial airlines, but make it fly itself using waypoints or something like that.

 

[sdtrojan]

wow that is so cool and to think of future applications that it can be retro-fitted for.
And yes i agree humans have limited the capabilities of these super high speed, and aggressive maneuvering toys. It will be very interesting to see how they continue to push the capabilities now that there is no need for an onboard pilot.

Just imagine if they used this technology for commercial airlines, but make it fly itself using waypoints or something like that.

Pilots are pretty much only onboard airliners for take-off, landing and emergencies. Today's aircraft can pretty much get from A to B without their assistance already. Would not want to be a pax on an UAV airliner though....no thanks

 

[BigW25]

I used to refuel planes, including the F-16, in air (KC-135 Boom Operator 1995-2006). I do not know if they refuel the remote piloted version in air yet, but I am sure the day is coming. I am glad I am not up there to see it.

 

[HailStorm]

This is a good reminder that a drone is a drone, whether it's a small hobby UAV, a Cadillac sized heli, or a full sized autonomous aircraft. When the government talks about regulating drones, it's not just your little Phantom they have in mind.

 

[HailStorm]

Double post hiccup...

 

[kitari]

This is a good reminder that a drone is a drone, whether it's a small hobby UAV, a Cadillac sized heli, or a full sized autonomous aircraft. When the government talks about regulating drones, it's not just your little Phantom they have in mind.

True, I just wish they'd regulate by class instead of group us all together as a whole.

 

[Meta4]

What a waste of a fully functional F16 UAV - to use it for target practice!

 

[GoodnNuff]

This is a good reminder that a drone is a drone, whether it's a small hobby UAV, a Cadillac sized heli, or a full sized autonomous aircraft. When the government talks about regulating drones, it's not just your little Phantom they have in mind.

True, I just wish they'd regulate by class instead of group us all together as a whole.

This is exactly what needs to be done. It is ridiculous to apply the same safety guidelines to a 4 lb quad with a camera and 50 lb solar powered plane with a 20 ft wingspan used for mapping.

 

[Meta4]

This is a good reminder that a drone is a drone, whether it's a small hobby UAV, a Cadillac sized heli, or a full sized autonomous aircraft.

That's complete nonsense.
It's like saying a rowing dinghy is the same as a 400 metre container ship or a guided missile cruiser - a boat is a boat.
If you can't see a difference between a 3lb plastic toy helicopter and a full size R/C F16 or a 65 ft wingspan Reaper, you must be writing policy for the FAA

When the government talks about regulating drones, it's not just your little Phantom they have in mind.

And that's the problem.

 

[HailStorm]

Take a deep calming breath, Meta4.
Have you ever seen the FAA make a distinction between a palm sized quadcopter and a full sized autonomous drone? Have you?
This group of Phantom-centric quad flyers often forget that there are other drones flying the skies besides their little white jellyfish.
And when the government talks about regulating drones, it isn't the Phantom they are focused on. When a pilot reports seeing a drone at X feet, whether factual or not, it probably wasn't a tiny white DJI jellyfish that was spotted.
So whether right or wrong, to the government and the media, a drone is a drone regardless of it's size or purpose, to 90% of the DJI fan boys on this forum, a drone is a drone and nothing but a Phantom.
In my opinion articles like this are a good reminder to that 90% on here who can't see beyond the DJI lineup, that indeed there are other, much larger "drones" out there, and it's not just Phantoms that the FAA is going after.
If hearing that a drone is a drone in the government's current lexicon is nonsense to you, then that tells me you're one of those who can't see beyond DJI's offerings.
In the thread about terrorist drones, how many of you droned on about how a Phantom couldn't carry a payload of explosives, thus drones were not a threat...lol. Again, can't see beyond that DJI jellyfish, can ya? Now that is what I call nonsense...

 

[sdtrojan]

What a waste of a fully functional F16 UAV - to use it for target practice!

I doubt they are going to blow them out of the sky, they will use captive weapons which allow for target acquisition of the weapon system, with inert warheads and rocket motors. Blowing them out of the sky would be an unjustifiable expense, a safety hazard, an environmental hazard (F-16 use hydrazine in the EPU system) and splashing one of these things indiscriminately would not be taken lightly if it was not immediately rendered inoperable and came down in a controlled area and instead just gets damaged, flies into a neighborhood, and kills people.

 

[sdtrojan]

Take a deep calming breath, Meta4.
Have you ever seen the FAA make a distinction between a palm sized quadcopter and a full sized autonomous drone? Have you?
This group of Phantom-centric quad flyers often forget that there are other drones flying the skies besides their little white jellyfish.
And when the government talks about regulating drones, it isn't the Phantom they are focused on. When a pilot reports seeing a drone at X feet, whether factual or not, it probably wasn't a tiny white DJI jellyfish that was spotted.
So whether right or wrong, to the government and the media, a drone is a drone regardless of it's size or purpose, to 90% of the DJI fan boys on this forum, a drone is a drone and nothing but a Phantom.
In my opinion articles like this are a good reminder to that 90% on here who can't see beyond the DJI lineup, that indeed there are other, much larger "drones" out there, and it's not just Phantoms that the FAA is going after.
If hearing that a drone is a drone in the government's current lexicon is nonsense to you, then that tells me your one of those who can't see beyond DJI's offerings.
In the thread about terrorist drones, how many of you droned on about how a Phantom couldn't carry a payload of explosives, thus drones were not a threat...lol. Again, can't see beyond that DJI jellyfish, can ya? Now that is what I call nonsense...

That's a good post. A little incendiary, but good none the less.