Remember that "Drone" that "Crashed on the White House Lawn" a couple months back? How about "Toy helicopter lost in D.C." How does that strike ya? You would think CNN hadn't ever heard of a RC toy before.
@PocketBrain Yeah, the media bears a significant amount of blame here. Imagine if the "drone" that had "crashed on the white house lawn" was a paper AIRPLANE. OH MY GOSH AN AIRPLANE CRASHED ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN!!!
Well, the RC quadcopter that DID land on the White House lawn wasn't much of a step up from a paper airplane. It can fly for approximately 20 minutes longer than a paper airplane, and can be controlled moderately better than a paper airplane (but not much, judging by how often they crash); but that's about it.
Originally, drone was synonymous with UAV. And for it to be "unmanned," there had to be a similar "manned" version. Ergo, ICMBs ain't drones. Tomahawks ain't drones. Fire and forget rockets like Patriots aren't drones. And wire-guided rockets like the TOW aren't drones.
Somewhere along the way, that requirement went away. Now "drone" equals RC. Not sure why.
Funny ... I was with CENTCOM and CFLCC when "surge" morphed from a purely logistical and administrative term into a tactical one (although it still doesn't show up in field manuals as such), and I was doing MSCA and Stafford Act stuff when "WMD" morphed from OK City-style fertilizer bombs into any old chem or nuke asset, tactical or not. So it happens. Can't think of the right term, use one you heard somewhere, and it sticks. But I still don't get "drones." Just doesn't make sense, etymologically.
Other key word is vehicle. Has to transport something, either cargo or sensors. RC is not a requirement. Smart UAVs could also be called a drone. Even if no one knows why.
@Pavlov If someone didn't know better, after reading that last sentence they might think that you're insinuating that a large group of individuals that lurk about Meh are mindless sluggards that yearn to be part of a collective. ;)
@eyewerksMad props on the Borg reference apropos of the content of the specific episode, combined with an editorialization of this crazy little community.
I voted Multirotor with GPS, but really any craft that has an autonomous mode of any kind would probably count. UAV != Drone in my book, though most drones are UAVs, and some UAVs may be drones, if they have no auto pilot then they aren't.
DRONES are things that you see on "Homeland" that drop bombs on bad guys or surveil Mandy Patinkin to help him escape from Al Kaeda (sic) and can be operated from hundreds of miles away.
EVERYTHING ELSE is an RC toy. TOY.
Granted, they may be toys incorporating technology advancements that have recently allowed expansion of their capabilities to fly higher and farther and carry cameras and other payloads, but they're still just toys.
They may even be toys that, IF flown by a terribly, horribly, irresponsible user who should be taken out back and flogged mercilessly for creating the current media firestorm and atmosphere of regulatory imposition, can fly high enough to interfere with a REAL aircraft; but they're still just toys.
Granted, a toy that's operated by a moron; but still just a toy nonetheless.
They may even be toys that can carry cameras and fly over the nifty fence your neighbor built around his property to keep douchebags from spying on him while he sunbathes naked in his backyard, thus causing people to panic and cry for stifling regulation to curb such offensive abuses of personal privacy; but they're still just toys. And your neighbor's still a creepy douchebag.
But they're still just toys. Toys that can carry cameras, but still just a toy.
Like an iPhone, with rotors.
Yet for some reason the FAA feels the need to get involved. And other entities feel the need to ban the use of "drones" within their borders entirely as some sort of unnecessary knee-jerk reaction to all the over-reactors out there.
How about people stop being a bunch of alarmists and just take each complaint about other peoples' RC Toys as they come in? Some guy flies his toy high enough to interfere with a real aircraft? Take a report and try to hunt that guy down and punish him.
Somebody is constantly flying their drone over someone else's private back yard? Take the complaint, ask the guy to stop and charge him with trespassing or whatever.
In other words, do the same things you would do if these complaints were taking place without an RC toy - if some douche were constantly peeking over someone else's fence or someone was violating airport/airspace security.
But people need to stop over-thinking and over-regulating this.
I would say a "drone", in this context, would be a self-powered flying machine that can be operated out of direct view of the operator. That is, a RC plane or helicopter or quadcopter with a camera that transmits video to the operator. I see a gray area where the flying machine has a camera but does not transmit, i.e., it can record video/photos but needs the operator to see it to fly it.
Kites and paper airplanes are not self-powered and do not count as a drone.
"Drone" has already become too vague. What is the best phrase for a fully autonomous flying vehicle?
If you combined the motors and large propellers from a toy coaxial helicopter (Syma107-ish), a couple optical range finders, a battery, a rate gyro, and an Arduino compatible processor into a fully autonomous 42 gram flying machine, what would you call it?
In order to get it down to 42 grams, we tossed most of the frame and the entire tail. We mounted the battery slightly forward, so it is tilted forward. Thus it always flies forwards. It turns by speeding up one blade and slowing down the other. It climbs by speeding up both blades. It uses a downward facing optical range finder for feedback to maintain altitude. A forward facing range finder let's it avoid most obstacles. (It routinely crashes into windows, mirrors, and anything that is shiny).
There is no remote control. The program in the Arduino compatible processor controls it's destiny.
Drone has a specific meaning in biology. However, in the realm of inanimate objects (or corporate sociology) there's a wide range of definitions, most no more or less valid than another.
To me, a "drone" would be something that can fly for a period of time without a human controlling it.
Neither a queen or a worker can you be(e).
@eyewerks A "drone" is also a male wasp or a male ant. : )
Remember that "Drone" that "Crashed on the White House Lawn" a couple months back? How about "Toy helicopter lost in D.C." How does that strike ya? You would think CNN hadn't ever heard of a RC toy before.
@PocketBrain Yeah, the media bears a significant amount of blame here.
Imagine if the "drone" that had "crashed on the white house lawn" was a paper AIRPLANE. OH MY GOSH AN AIRPLANE CRASHED ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN!!!
Well, the RC quadcopter that DID land on the White House lawn wasn't much of a step up from a paper airplane. It can fly for approximately 20 minutes longer than a paper airplane, and can be controlled moderately better than a paper airplane (but not much, judging by how often they crash); but that's about it.
Originally, drone was synonymous with UAV. And for it to be "unmanned," there had to be a similar "manned" version. Ergo, ICMBs ain't drones. Tomahawks ain't drones. Fire and forget rockets like Patriots aren't drones. And wire-guided rockets like the TOW aren't drones.
Somewhere along the way, that requirement went away. Now "drone" equals RC. Not sure why.
Funny ... I was with CENTCOM and CFLCC when "surge" morphed from a purely logistical and administrative term into a tactical one (although it still doesn't show up in field manuals as such), and I was doing MSCA and Stafford Act stuff when "WMD" morphed from OK City-style fertilizer bombs into any old chem or nuke asset, tactical or not. So it happens. Can't think of the right term, use one you heard somewhere, and it sticks. But I still don't get "drones." Just doesn't make sense, etymologically.
Other key word is vehicle. Has to transport something, either cargo or sensors. RC is not a requirement. Smart UAVs could also be called a drone. Even if no one knows why.
Drone = UAV = unmanned aerial vehicle = remotely piloted craft. So any RC chopper/plane qualifies, technically.
@katfude
@katfude why does a drone have to be an aircraft?
@AlohaSnackbar
It doesn't
And RC isn't a requirement, either.
Drone is the 96th episode of Star Trek: Voyager (the second episode of the fifth season).
I don't see where there is any confusion on this . . . Plus to many here, it may be the only definition that really matters.
@Pavlov If someone didn't know better, after reading that last sentence they might think that you're insinuating that a large group of individuals that lurk about Meh are mindless sluggards that yearn to be part of a collective. ;)
@eyewerks Mad props on the Borg reference apropos of the content of the specific episode, combined with an editorialization of this crazy little community.
I voted Multirotor with GPS, but really any craft that has an autonomous mode of any kind would probably count. UAV != Drone in my book, though most drones are UAVs, and some UAVs may be drones, if they have no auto pilot then they aren't.
Don't even get me started on this.
Ok, you got me started...
DRONES are things that you see on "Homeland" that drop bombs on bad guys or surveil Mandy Patinkin to help him escape from Al Kaeda (sic) and can be operated from hundreds of miles away.
EVERYTHING ELSE is an RC toy. TOY.
Granted, they may be toys incorporating technology advancements that have recently allowed expansion of their capabilities to fly higher and farther and carry cameras and other payloads, but they're still just toys.
They may even be toys that, IF flown by a terribly, horribly, irresponsible user who should be taken out back and flogged mercilessly for creating the current media firestorm and atmosphere of regulatory imposition, can fly high enough to interfere with a REAL aircraft; but they're still just toys.
Granted, a toy that's operated by a moron; but still just a toy nonetheless.
They may even be toys that can carry cameras and fly over the nifty fence your neighbor built around his property to keep douchebags from spying on him while he sunbathes naked in his backyard, thus causing people to panic and cry for stifling regulation to curb such offensive abuses of personal privacy; but they're still just toys.
And your neighbor's still a creepy douchebag.
But they're still just toys.
Toys that can carry cameras, but still just a toy.
Like an iPhone, with rotors.
Yet for some reason the FAA feels the need to get involved. And other entities feel the need to ban the use of "drones" within their borders entirely as some sort of unnecessary knee-jerk reaction to all the over-reactors out there.
How about people stop being a bunch of alarmists and just take each complaint about other peoples' RC Toys as they come in?
Some guy flies his toy high enough to interfere with a real aircraft? Take a report and try to hunt that guy down and punish him.
Somebody is constantly flying their drone over someone else's private back yard? Take the complaint, ask the guy to stop and charge him with trespassing or whatever.
In other words, do the same things you would do if these complaints were taking place without an RC toy - if some douche were constantly peeking over someone else's fence or someone was violating airport/airspace security.
But people need to stop over-thinking and over-regulating this.
@pepsiwine You might want to reply to the FAA's Notice of proposed rulemaking then. https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/
@pepsiwine Soooo your vote is 'paper airplane,' then?
I would say a "drone", in this context, would be a self-powered flying machine that can be operated out of direct view of the operator. That is, a RC plane or helicopter or quadcopter with a camera that transmits video to the operator. I see a gray area where the flying machine has a camera but does not transmit, i.e., it can record video/photos but needs the operator to see it to fly it.
Kites and paper airplanes are not self-powered and do not count as a drone.
"Drone" has already become too vague. What is the best phrase for a fully autonomous flying vehicle?
If you combined the motors and large propellers from a toy coaxial helicopter (Syma107-ish), a couple optical range finders, a battery, a rate gyro, and an Arduino compatible processor into a fully autonomous 42 gram flying machine, what would you call it?
In order to get it down to 42 grams, we tossed most of the frame and the entire tail. We mounted the battery slightly forward, so it is tilted forward. Thus it always flies forwards. It turns by speeding up one blade and slowing down the other. It climbs by speeding up both blades. It uses a downward facing optical range finder for feedback to maintain altitude. A forward facing range finder let's it avoid most obstacles. (It routinely crashes into windows, mirrors, and anything that is shiny).
There is no remote control. The program in the Arduino compatible processor controls it's destiny.
Drone has a specific meaning in biology. However, in the realm of inanimate objects (or corporate sociology) there's a wide range of definitions, most no more or less valid than another.