Talk:General Atomics MQ-1 Predator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled comments

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)

Cost appears off. Found other references contradicting 4.5 million:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=46

http://www.fact-index.com/r/rq/rq_1_predator.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.47.63 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

I have now found an official source on the name change, here [1], so I'm moving the page. Akradecki 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comparable aircraft

Add Denel Aerospace Systems Bateleur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_Aerospace_Systems_Bateleur Roger 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexis Debat, a reliable source?

Alexis Debat's credibility has been discussed, in particular after having made a false interview of Barack Obama in the magazine Politique internationale. See Une fausse interview d'Obama dans Politique internationale by Pascal Riché in Rue 89. I am therefore removing him as he is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 12:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of Hellfires?

In the first paragraph, it's said the Predator carries 2 Hellfires... but in the armament list near the end it says it can mount up to 6. Which is right? Jogar2 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think two, as it has only two missile pods. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Actually, the Predator did track and acquire Al-Zarqawi with at least two assets following his religious advisor. After a month of following this target, they were both caught in a "safehouse" together and killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.37.14 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

Minor Nitpick - It's not a jet. It has a Rotax 914 turbocharged piston engine, however the principle of max range efficiency remains the same anyway. Roger 12:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it can loiter for 24 hours at a range of 400 nautical miles (from the General Atomics web site, "Over 24 hr on-station at 400 nmi"). 66.24.34.51 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Balkans contradiction

In the Balkans section, the main paragraph talks about Nomad Vigil from July to November 1995. The first bullet point under this paragraph says a drone was lost April 18, 1999. This incident clearly was not part of Nomad Vigil and it is deceptive to have it as a bullet point under the preceding paragraph. If the bullet points are incidents unrelated to the Nomad Vigil, shouldn't there be text explaining that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.163.123 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Aerodynamic

Why the funny shape? Arnero (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is funny about it? It has high aspect straight wings for efficient low speed flight at high altitude. Tail mounted engine and the equipment bay forward to distribute the weight correctly along the length. The equipment bay has a bulged upper section to accommodate a relatively large satellite data-link antenna. Roger (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tier II"

I'd like the introduction to say "the Predator is considered a Tier II system, meaning XXXXXXX", but I can't work out from the reference what XXXXXX is. The document doesn't seem to propose any system of tiers, it just describes three different UAVs. Subsolar (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

question...

The MQ-9 Reaper article largely duplicates this one. Maybe there need to be multiple articles, for each one, maybe there should be an article for each variant. But the level of redundancy should be reduced. Geo Swan (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's "Air Force"?

Simply in terms of good writing, whenever "Air Force" is used, it should state clearly whether that's the US Air Force, the Italian Air Force, the CIA, or whichever operator the article is referring to at that point in the text. Yes, yes, you can tell from the context that this article is almost entirely about the US Air Force, but that's lazy writing, leaving it up to the reader to make an inference. Cheers, Neale Monks (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)