RQ-7Bv2 goes sightseeing

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The 77 miles includes 8-9 hours on station, under positive control. If it's just flying a straight line, with no control, all that loiter time goes to range.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The 77 miles includes 8-9 hours on station, under positive control. If it's just flying a straight line, with no control, all that loiter time goes to range.

Ah, that does make a difference! Still, what a flight!! hope it was just some crazy glitch, and loss of control, and not something people-related. What a trip, though! I wonder, do they have any video/pics? That would be cool if so!!

One of these days, I need to get the little drone I have set up and work on flying it. Video capable, and could be great to see wildlife in the little wooded areas nearby!

I would venture a guess that the drone wasn't in trim for level flight, and after radio control was lost it used up it's fuel in a shallow climb and flew very high, helped by winds and then glided down finally where it was found.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Achieved self aware status perhaps?

"Number Five is alive!!""

ROTFL!!!

I was thinking "Martha"!

a reply to: Flipper35

Better than HAL...

originally posted by: Flipper35

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Achieved self aware status perhaps?

"Number Five is alive!!""

ROTFL!!!

I was thinking "Martha"!

ROTFL!!!

Fun story, at any rate!! Nice to have something not political now and then, eh?

At least the thing didn't go on a vector into high traffic airspace. Story could have been different if it ended up in southern California. Think about all the crap hobbyist fliers are given with their RC craft these days, and here's the government having one of theirs go loose which is at least 3X bigger than the usual hobby-grade stuff.

And speaking of hobby-grade stuff, the better receiver units have auto-stabilization and return-to-home. Given the flight of this drone it seems like it had stabilization, but still no (active?) return-to-home feature.

So the next question, is anyone being held accountable for the screw-up?

a reply to: pauljs75

They didn't necessarily screw up though. A communications failure isn't a screw up.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I'm thinking it was probably the latter, and after it lost contact, it just kept flying in the direction it was pointed. The wings were level, so it just kept flying until it ran out of fuel.

It could be a glitch, but a clandestine hacking attempt could have the result of disabling communications or reliable control.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pauljs75

They didn't necessarily screw up though. A communications failure isn't a screw up.

It may not be an operational screw-up but it could be a design or manufacturing screw-up.

a reply to: mbkennel

Usually, in cases like this, it's a single component failure. Things break. The launch mechanism for this isn't the gentlest, and it tends to cause things to work loose.

a reply to: WUNK22

how are they even allowed to fly here. you all thought i was crazy when i said we had to switch to digital tv was because gov needed analog channels to fly ucavs over us i guess i was right.

a reply to: proteus33

They're being flown over MOAs, which don't have people living in them. They are over populated areas going from the launch point right next to the MOA, to the MOA. That means 99% of the population doesn't have them flown over.