Having flown the Air Force's Mighty 160 HP weed wacker with a hellfire i.e. the MQ1-B "predator" the bigest misconception is that we flew the plane totally autonomous. My aircraft was always under my control unless it went lost link then it returned to base for the Line Of Site guys to land it. They are correct though the UAV is at the WWI stages, not in the tecnology but in the resistance for the airforce to accept it as the future of Air Power. An MQ-1 Predator is doing the same job in the AOR as an F-16 or any other traditional combat aircraft in the war on terror at a fraction of a cost. These will be the future. The cost benefit outweighs the tradition platforms. When I flew KC-135 Air Restfullers we put 4000lbs of gas per hour into each F-16 flying as an overpriced police helicopter. one Predator can stay airborne for 22 hours on 550 pounds of gas. We fly all predator missions in the states mainly at Creech in North Las Vegas NV. The only people we have to send downranfe is the launch and recovery element which consits of 30 personnel versus 600 that fly predators 24/7 in the states. That saves millions a year in deployment cost and infrastructure.
I liked how they showed the quad hovering above the fence looking at the girl in the back yard and she didn't notice it... they make them look like they are quiet... also the guy flying though the streets... bad idea i think. JOsh
Yeah, I tell everybody that these things are the opposite of "stealth", and I like it that way. I have no interest on sneaking up on anybody. And I'd like to think the noise deters curious birds, too. Too bad trees are unimpressed.
I feel bad that my one minute of fame on the NOVA show didn't do much - if anything - to address the safety concerns that are so important to keeping our hobby from being regulated into oblivion. The NOVA film crew spent over 12 hours with me last July and at least 4 hours of that time was actual filming. The original concept of the segment was their idea after someone ran across the tacocopter.com website and they asked me if I would help them to demonstrate the potential of using UAV quadrotors for fast food delivery. I'm told that the website is real and that it was intended to be an actual business, but because of the current FAA ban on any UAV commercial flying it never got past the conceptual stage. All of the actual flying in the show was done as line of sight flying on what was a controlled set - in my neighborhood - on the day of the filming.
Corey, thanks for confirming that you were actually flying line of sight on a controlled set even though the ending edit made it appear otherwise. Is it really surprising that the network producers made it appear as though it was an autonomous flight through a city...not at all!
Thanks Howard. The girl in the bikini that you mentioned was also filmed during the shoot at my place. It was a last minute request by the film crew on the day of the shoot to see if I knew anyone who could pose in a bikini. Fortunately a good friend and neighbor - Nila - volunteered and we filmed it in yet another neighbors backyard. It was a bit windy, the quad was a bit noisy, and after a half dozen takes Nila was more than a bit bored, but still a good sport! That's Hollywood baby! I might post some of the other GoPro footage that wasn't used in the show, but I better check the papers I had to sign first...
Corey: Firstly,welcome to the forum. I suspected that the video they shot of you and your flying failed to match the implications of the narrative, such that your flying was given a darker interpretation than was the real thing. Sadly, a hobbyist flying for pleasure and a safe manner doesn't fit the more sinister implications of drones (witness the lighting of all the interviewees). It "sells" better to have that "yellow peril" kind of fear -- even the title "The Rise of the Drones" telegraphs that this was not exactly level-headed television. Now we wait for Mr. Limbaugh to get a hold of the story.... Sigh. Andy.