Talk:MQ-1 Predator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great parts of this article look like a slightly reworded copy from: http://www.defensedaily.com/progprof/usaf/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html. Copyright notice from that site reads: Copyright © 2002 PBI Media, LLC All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of PBI Media, LLC is prohibited. Could someone please provide proof that all of this is not a copyright violation? Otherwise the article will have to be deleted. Kosebamse 10:25 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I've edited some of it. You should do the same. Like a Virgin
This copyright violation has gone unnoticed for a while. The text reads very much like a USAF fact sheet. The USAF site is broken right at this minute, but if it turns out that it's not from a government source this is defintely a copyvio and will have to be yanked. --Robert Merkel 12:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It is in fact public domain information, not copyright. Defense Daily copied it from the Air Force's site, and their claim to its copyright is illegitimate. --the Epopt 16:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As there are various versions, RQ-1, MQ-1 and other designations, it would be better if the title were the more general "Predator drone", don't you think? (I'm not sure how to edit the title.) Frank Freeman 09:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, there are not seperate versions. In 2002, the USAF officially changed the designation for the system as a whole to "MQ". All that was left after that is erroneous press reports out of "habit". I would prefer to keep the title the way it is. Akradecki 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] MQ-1 Predator
Shouldn't this entry be changed to MQ-1 Predator? I read in the DoD UAV dev. roadmap that it was changed from R to M since it can fire hellfires. R is used for reconnaissance and the M would mean that it has a multirole capability. I don't want to screw with the page without knowing how to make it so that anyone looking for RQ-1 would be redirected to MQ-1 though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.45.0 (talk • contribs).
- The RQ-1 is almost totally phased out at this point. The 15th is all MQs now, the 17th has just a couple left. M4gnesium 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Table a mess
The table is a mess, at least in Firefox. Can someone with proper expertise fix it? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 07:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Death of Zarqawi
I removed "On June 7, 2006 A Predator was used in a mission resulting in the death of wanted terrorist Al Zarqawi." because this was contradicted by several news reports([2], [3],) and even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 199.64.0.252 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Zarqawi was killed by an F-16 airstrike. Not a predator. LWF 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- sorry about that, early reports were saying he was killed using a Predator... I forgot to come back and change this article after sources were cleared up... - Adolphus79 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
crosspost, on Al Zarqwwee page, I think the video footage is from a predator. 66.194.72.10 (talk • contribs)
filmed by the predator, not killed by the predator, so the removed part could go back in, as the predator may have been used in the mission to capture the imagery ----> theblacksuperman (talk • contribs)
- he had been tracked & hunted down by the predators... the F-16s just came in for the kill... - Adolphus79 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my sources make no mention of Predators. They say a special forces team was tracking his chief theological advisor, and they spotted a meeting of many top Al-Qaeda leaders, and they then called in an airstrike. No mention of predators. I'd say until more reliable information comes out we should leave it out. LWF 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying LWF, it was wild conjecture on my part. but the video footage really does look as if if came from a remote drone. I'll see if I can find a good source next time (or this time) before giving opinions. Theblacksuperman 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Range seems off
The performance section states 400nm as the typical range for the aircraft. Just below that it says 24 hour endurance. Well if you do some simple math with the cruise speed you'll get: 103 mph x 24 hours = 2472 miles. And to convert to nm we do 2472 miles x 0.868976242 = 2148 nm. Perhaps the range should be updated. --User:Bikrtc
- Two things, first you are assuming 1 way range (you have to return to base so divide the number by two). Second, perhaps you need time for loitering (ex. circling around looking for ossama). I wouldn't change anything until more research is done. --MarsRover 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Cruise speed in jet propelled aircraft is maximum fuel efficiency for distance, not for flight time. There's a significant difference in fuel consumption between the two. ... also, can we change nm to something that isn't also the SI abbreviation for nanometers? I think the correct abbreviations are nmi, naut mi, NM, and n mile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.69.68 (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Looking for downing info
The Museum of Yugoslav Aviation has a Predator hanging on display, and I assume this was downed during the 90s conflict. It'd be nice to have some info on the aprox date, location and circumstances of the downing in the article, but I can't find anything. Anyone? Akradecki 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like we lost a bunch of drones in the balkans[4] --MarsRover 06:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link...I've incorporated that information Akradecki 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class aviation articles needing review | B-Class aircraft articles | B-Class aviation articles | B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles